lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Itamar Syn-Hershko <ita...@code972.com>
Subject Re: Setting up the CI pipeline
Date Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:21:40 GMT
To answer your questions:

1. I think we can waive code coverage for now. Especially since we are
basically porting tests from Java Lucene and at this point code coverage
will have no effect on our process.

2. This is probably a result of a race condition / test instability. I
don't think it has anything with which repo you read from, just the core
instability of some of the moving parts.

3. "run after master branch has an update" is the way to go. Can you set it
up to send notifications to the dev list please?

I was referring to https://github.com/ParticularLabs/GitVersion but for now
we can keep with vanilla git flow / github flow

--

Itamar Syn-Hershko
http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
Freelance Developer & Consultant
Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Wyatt Barnett <wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi everyone, sorry for the radio silence but we are getting very close.
>
> The basic CI setup where we grab the latest and then run an automated build
> and test was fairly easy to get worked out. But getting it running right
> has been a bit of a challenge. The main stumbling block the last few weeks
> was that, if I ran the test suite locally, I was getting through it in
> 15-20 minutes. Once I went to the build servers this stretched to 2+ hours.
> After playing a game of "what am I doing differently" I realized I was
> causing this delay. TeamCity has a feature for running test coverage on
> your tests. I had enabled this on our tests because test coverage is great
> and part of the point of doing this. It turns out test coverage also very
> slow which was causing this time issue -- not something horribly fubar in
> the code or the tests.
>
> The other problem I am seeing is that there seems to be some variabiltiy in
> what tests fail here are the last 3 test runs, all with zero code changes:
> * #45: 1178 tests failed, 53 new failures, 1476 passed, 119 ignored
> * #44: 1170 tests failed, 49 new failures, 1483 passed, 119 ignored
> * #42: 1178 tests failed, 50 new failures, 1476 passed, 119 ignored
> * #41: 1178 tests failed, 58 new failures, 1475 passed, 119 ignored
>
> In this context a "new" failure means that the test had passed in a
> previous iteration and then failed anew, potentially indicating some broken
> code was introduced. Unfortunately there were zero code changes during any
> or all of those tests -- I was just trying to get a consistent run given
> consistent input. I also have seen a similar pattern on my private setup
> where I have done the lion's share of this development work.
>
> In terms of sources, I am successfully running against the apache github
> mirror. The official apache git repo is still hanging about 90 tests into
> things and I'm not sure why -- it appears to be the same commit hash as the
> github branch (2d7533d4e5a3278f242c2915c6f8dfd10ea77847) so it is
> presumably the same code involved. Will investigate this further but for
> now we are pointed at https://github.com/apache/lucenenet.git.
>
> In terms of proceeding here, here are the questions:
>
> * How important is constantly running / reported code coverage to us? Worth
> having a very lengthly build process? Is it something where we setup a
> single weekly code-coverage reporting job?
> * Does anyone have any insight into the inconsistent behavior by some of
> the tests? There are CSV exports of all the test runs so we could probably
> do some anaysis to focus the targets.
> * Is there any difference I am *not* seeing with the ASF repo? Why is the
> github one working and the presumably identical ASF one not?
> * What kind of schedule do we want this running on? Right now it has been
> manual, mainly because I didn't want to loose 3 hour test cycles on the
> world. But we are past that a bit so I think we can switch it to "run after
> master branch has an update" at this point and not overstay our welcome
> over at codebetter and get to the kind of feedback you all wanted.
>
> Still on the todo list [with questions]:
>
> * Get a better build system in place in general to make room for . . . .
> * Setup nuget generation and other packaging -- really kind of moot until
> we get tests passing in general but still notable.
> * Take a dive into integrating with the git flow system Itamar mentioned
> someplace but I can't seem to find at the moment.
>
> Hope this helps explain a bit, please let me know if you've got questions.
>
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Wyatt, I wonder if you have any good news for us on this?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > --
> >
> > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Wyatt Barnett <wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So, after fighting a number of teething problems -- many of them self
> > > inflicted -- I've got a solid, repeatable test run that finishes in 38
> > > minutes or so on our hardware.
> > >
> > > I can certainly reprise this setup over on teamcity.codebetter.com
> > without
> > > much effort. We will need to merge some changes into things before
> > > proceeding -- the current state of tests in the trunk will just hang if
> > we
> > > tried to run them there. I'm guessing I'll need to sign a contributing
> > > agreement here as I don't believe I filed one.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Wyatt Barnett <
> wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Sounds good, we'll be [Explicit()] with reason.
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > itamar@code972.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Yes, but Explicit() will help us isolate those issues from other
> real
> > > bugs
> > > >> we can concentrate on solving in parallel.
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >>
> > > >> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >> http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > >> Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > >> Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Wyatt Barnett <
> > > wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > [Ignore()] is good too, I actually prefer a slightly nuanced
> version
> > > >> called
> > > >> > [Explicit()] as that lets you still fire off the test from
> resharper
> > > or
> > > >> > nunit gui.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > That said I proposed Assert.Fail() here because we can put the
> > failure
> > > >> > point at the *exact* point where the folks should start debugging
> > this
> > > >> from
> > > >> > versus having them start a at a whole test or test fixture.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > itamar@code972.com
> > > >> >
> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Don't forget to stick a reason to the Ignore property tho!
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > --
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >> > > http://code972.com | @synhershko <
> https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > >> > > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > >> > > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > >> itamar@code972.com
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > Or just Skip (or Ignore, however that's called in NUnit)
:)
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > --
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >> > > > http://code972.com | @synhershko <
> > https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > >> > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > >> > > > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Wyatt Barnett <
> > > >> > wyatt.barnett@gmail.com
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> 5 minutes sounds like a reasonable going in proposition.
That
> > > said
> > > >> > > >> depending on how many of these there are there
might well be
> a
> > > >> *lot*
> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > 5
> > > >> > > >> minute waits.
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> Would it help if I just stuck Assert.Fails() where
I run into
> > > these
> > > >> > > loops
> > > >> > > >> for the folks smarter than I to run down?
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko
<
> > > >> > itamar@code972.com
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > 5 mins max for one test maybe?
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > To fix that infinite loop we need to revisit
the original
> > Java
> > > >> code,
> > > >> > > >> most
> > > >> > > >> > likely its porting of an iterator-style code
that went
> > wrong. I
> > > >> hope
> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > >> > have time to look at it next week, please
anyone else who
> > feels
> > > >> like
> > > >> > > it
> > > >> > > >> > beat me to it..
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > --
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >> > > >> > http://code972.com | @synhershko <
> > > https://twitter.com/synhershko
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > >> > > >> > Author of RavenDB in Action <
> http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Wyatt Barnett
<
> > > >> > > >> wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > So, after the 2nd day of watching the
tests just spin I
> > > decided
> > > >> > > that a
> > > >> > > >> > > little visibility might make sense as
something just was
> > not
> > > >> > adding
> > > >> > > up
> > > >> > > >> > -- I
> > > >> > > >> > > expected some failing tests, and some
long-running tests
> > but
> > > >> there
> > > >> > > >> just
> > > >> > > >> > > ain't enough data here to keep something
running for 8+
> > > hours.
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > Anyhow, I stood up VS and the debugger
and started
> looking
> > > into
> > > >> > > things
> > > >> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > >> > > I found that I was hitting at least one
infiinte loop
> > dealing
> > > >> with
> > > >> > > >> > > randomized values -- specifically at
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/lucene.net/blob/master/src/Lucene.Net.TestFramework/Index/BasePostingsFormatTestCase.cs#L394
> > > >> > > >> > > ;
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > Anyhow, I'm not sure how to proceed here
as if we want
> test
> > > >> > > automation
> > > >> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > >> > > tests need to run through in a reasonable
amount of time
> > but
> > > I
> > > >> > don't
> > > >> > > >> know
> > > >> > > >> > > enough about the project to know what
should run or not.
> > One
> > > >> > thought
> > > >> > > >> > would
> > > >> > > >> > > be to use nunit timeout attributes (
> > > >> > > >> > > http://www.nunit.org/index.php?p=timeout&r=2.5)
to
> > constrain
> > > >> > > things.
> > > >> > > >> If
> > > >> > > >> > so
> > > >> > > >> > > what is a reasonable timeout?
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > I'm quite open to other, non kludgy thoughts
too . . .
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Wyatt
Barnett <
> > > >> > > >> wyatt.barnett@gmail.com
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > > I looked over GitVersion -- looks
like a great fit for
> > this
> > > >> > > project
> > > >> > > >> > > though
> > > >> > > >> > > > it will require a bit of forethought
about branching
> > > >> strategies.
> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > > I'll take a run at getting it integrated
once I get
> > through
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > test
> > > >> > > >> > > suite
> > > >> > > >> > > > running successfully.
> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 11:59 AM,
Itamar Syn-Hershko <
> > > >> > > >> > itamar@code972.com
> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> Inline
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> --
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >> > > >> > > >> http://code972.com | @synhershko
<
> > > >> > https://twitter.com/synhershko
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> Freelance Developer & Consultant
> > > >> > > >> > > >> Author of RavenDB in Action
<
> > > http://manning.com/synhershko/
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 6:53
PM, Wyatt Barnett <
> > > >> > > >> > wyatt.barnett@gmail.com
> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks. I registered at
CodeBetter.com under wwb. Is
> > > there
> > > >> > any
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > documentation on their
TeamCity setup or someone
> who I
> > > can
> > > >> > > reach
> > > >> > > >> out
> > > >> > > >> > > to
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > regarding questions about
the build environment?
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> I'm asking around, will let
you know
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks for the rundown
-- things sound pretty
> > > >> straightforward
> > > >> > > and
> > > >> > > >> > > >> doable.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > One thing we'll need to
think a bit a bout is how do
> > we
> > > >> want
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > >> > manage
> > > >> > > >> > > >> the
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > git branching strategy
to best integrate with
> TeamCity
> > > and
> > > >> > best
> > > >> > > >> > > automate
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > the release cycle. Doing
things like constantly
> > > building a
> > > >> > > >> "trunk"
> > > >> > > >> > and
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > releasing based on tags
are very doable.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> Are you familiar with
> > > >> > > https://github.com/ParticularLabs/GitVersion
> > > >> > > >> ?
> > > >> > > >> > > I'll
> > > >> > > >> > > >> be interested in adopting this
to our process.
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I've grabbed the code,
looks like things are pretty
> > > clean
> > > >> in
> > > >> > > >> terms
> > > >> > > >> > of
> > > >> > > >> > > >> being
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > able to build and run cleanly.
One question --  I
> > > started
> > > >> > > running
> > > >> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > >> > > >> test
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > suite, it appears to execute
about 80% successfully.
> > I'm
> > > >> > > >> presuming
> > > >> > > >> > > this
> > > >> > > >> > > >> is
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > because we are still porting
4.8.0 here and is
> > expected
> > > >> > > behavior.
> > > >> > > >> > > Please
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > confirm.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> Yes, we still have some failing
tests. The hope is to
> > also
> > > >> > > utilize
> > > >> > > >> > > >> TeamCity's reports to measure
the affects of internal
> > > >> changes
> > > >> > we
> > > >> > > >> make
> > > >> > > >> > > >> faster.
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I'll take a few stabs at
a build cycle over the next
> > few
> > > >> days
> > > >> > > and
> > > >> > > >> > see
> > > >> > > >> > > >> what
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I can shake out.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> Thanks!
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at
11:06 AM, Itamar
> Syn-Hershko <
> > > >> > > >> > > >> itamar@code972.com>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Thanks Wyatt
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Can you please register
at
> > > >> http://teamcity.codebetter.com/
> > > >> > > and
> > > >> > > >> > send
> > > >> > > >> > > >> me
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > your
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > user name (privately
if you prefer)?
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Please use the master
branch of our Apache git
> > git://
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > git.apache.org/lucene.net.git
- or the mirror at
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/lucene.net
(would
> rather
> > > you
> > > >> use
> > > >> > > the
> > > >> > > >> > > >> original
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > one
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > to avoid delays)
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > The way I see it is
this:
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Lucene.Net.TestFramework
compiles and generates
> a
> > > >> nuget
> > > >> > > >> package
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Lucene.Net.Core
and Lucene.Net.Tests compiles,
> > > taking
> > > >> > > >> dependency
> > > >> > > >> > > on
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Lucene.Net.TestFramework
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Lucene.Net.Tests
is run and if successful
> versions
> > > the
> > > >> > > build
> > > >> > > >> and
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > generates nuget on
the local feed (we also have a
> > > MyGet
> > > >> > > >> account to
> > > >> > > >> > > >> work
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > with)
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Same process to
all sub-projects:
> > Lucene.Net.Queries
> > > >> for
> > > >> > > >> > example:
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >   * Compile
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >   * Compile Lucene.Net.Tests.Queries
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >   * Run tests from
Lucene.Net.Tests.Queries (take
> > > >> > dependency
> > > >> > > on
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Lucene.Net.TestFramework)
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >   * Create nuget for
Lucene.Net.Queries
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Every sub-project
should be re-compiled and
> tests
> > > >> re-run
> > > >> > if
> > > >> > > >> the
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > projects
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > it depends on have
changed (you can probably
> > separate
> > > >> the
> > > >> > > >> cases by
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > defining
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > watch folders under
src\)
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > We can then iterate
from there.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > I updated the README
to explain the new structure
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >>
> > https://github.com/apache/lucene.net/blob/master/README.md#files
> > > >> > > >> > -
> > > >> > > >> > > >> let
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > me
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > know if you have any
questions.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > --
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Itamar Syn-Hershko
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > http://code972.com
| @synhershko <
> > > >> > > >> https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Freelance Developer
& Consultant
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Author of RavenDB
in Action <
> > > >> > http://manning.com/synhershko/>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014
at 5:51 AM, Wyatt Barnett <
> > > >> > > >> > > >> wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > That would be
great -- let me know what I need
> to
> > do
> > > >> to
> > > >> > > help
> > > >> > > >> > make
> > > >> > > >> > > >> that
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > happen.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > In the meantime
I've got a teamcity server to
> work
> > > >> with
> > > >> > > here,
> > > >> > > >> > > >> should I
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > be
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > looking at
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > https://github.com/synhershko/lucene.net/tree/Lucene.Net_4.8.0
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > as the project
layout.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > Also, what is
envisioned for the output of the
> > build
> > > >> > > >> pipeline?
> > > >> > > >> > > Many
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > things
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > are within the
art of the possible.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Fri, Nov 14,
2014 at 9:08 PM, Prescott
> Nasser <
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > geobmx540@hotmail.com>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > Would love
the help setting this up - Itamar
> do
> > > you
> > > >> > know
> > > >> > > >> if we
> > > >> > > >> > > can
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > provide
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > Wyatt access
for this?
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > ________________________________
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > From: Wyatt
Barnett<mailto:
> > > wyatt.barnett@gmail.com>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > Sent: 11/14/2014
4:26 PM
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > To: dev@lucenenet.apache.org<mailto:
> > > >> > > >> dev@lucenenet.apache.org>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > Subject:
Re: Setting up the CI pipeline
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > I do a lot
of CI and CD and I've got loads of
> > seat
> > > >> time
> > > >> > > >> with
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > TeamCity,
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > I
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > would be
happy to help the cause.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > On Fri,
Nov 14, 2014 at 5:49 AM, Itamar
> > > Syn-Hershko
> > > >> <
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > itamar@code972.com>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Heya,
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > So
JetBrains and CodeBetter have setup a
> > > TeamCity
> > > >> > > account
> > > >> > > >> > for
> > > >> > > >> > > >> us -
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> http://teamcity.codebetter.com/project.html?projectId=LuceneNet&tab=projectOverview
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > I have
asked them to add Prescott and Troy
> as
> > > >> > > >> collaborators,
> > > >> > > >> > > so
> > > >> > > >> > > >> we
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > 3
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > have
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > access
to change stuff there.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > The
idea is to have every sub-project (Core,
> > > >> Codecs,
> > > >> > > >> > Queries,
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Facets,
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > etc)
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > compile
and available as a nuget package,
> and
> > > also
> > > >> > > >> > thoroughly
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > tested
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > via
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > the
test agents on TeamCity.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Prescott,
Troy - you said you can work on
> > > setting
> > > >> > this
> > > >> > > >> up,
> > > >> > > >> > > will
> > > >> > > >> > > >> be
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > happy
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > for
you to go ahead and do this now.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > If
there's anyone else on this list who has
> > > >> > experience
> > > >> > > >> with
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > TeamCity
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > and
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > setting
up CI pipelines, please drop us a
> line
> > > if
> > > >> you
> > > >> > > are
> > > >> > > >> > > >> willing
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > help
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > with
this effort.
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > --
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Itamar
Syn-Hershko
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > http://code972.com
| @synhershko <
> > > >> > > >> > > >> https://twitter.com/synhershko>
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Freelance
Developer & Consultant
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Author
of RavenDB in Action <
> > > >> > > >> http://manning.com/synhershko/
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >> >
> > > >> > > >>
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message