lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wyatt Barnett <wyatt.barn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Setting up the CI pipeline
Date Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:36:53 GMT
Thanks for the answers -- I do agree that sounds like what is going on with
the tests. If you drill down a bit you can get the failure messages which
read like race conditions -- like file access errors and such.

The build trigger has been re-enabled so you should get a build with the
next PR.

To get the list notified we'd need to create a fake TC user for the list
and then subscribe that to the project. Would that work?

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <itamar@code972.com>
wrote:
>
> 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