On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 4:36 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 10:36:31 +0200 > From: Johan Kuuse <[email protected]> > > Sorry for my ignorance, but I have never heard of this tool. Do you refer > to > > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/QA-C > > Yes.
> At work, we use the follwing workflow and tools: > > Pre-hooks to check the commit message > For that, in Fossil, you could configure a commit message editor to a program/script that launches a text editor (possibly with a "pre loaded" template), then validates the message after the editor is closed. > > The commit is first sent to Gerrit, used as a "Git proxy". > The commit triggers a build, handled by Jenkins, which compiles the code > and runs all test suites. > We develop software for electronic control modules. While we have automated testing, during development, loading a new version of software in to a module is still a manual process. So, we don't use Jenkins or other CI server. > My colleagues may analyze my new commit (manually, a.k.a "code review") > using Gerrit, and either reject or accept my commit. > > If either the Jenkins build fails, or at least one of my colleagues reject > my commit, I commit --amend a new patch, which triggers a new Jenkins build > and sends a new email to my colleagues/code reviewers, and so on, until > both Jenkins and my colleagues accept my new code. > > I may then submit my new commit to the "real repos" (i.e. "trunk", a.k.a. > "master" in the Git world). > > Gerrit is a user-friendly tool, but its function could obviously be > substituted with a new branch in the same repos as trunk. The new branch > would have the same function as a "proxy", before merging the commit into > trunk. > We commit our changes to development branches for review. Once a change has passed testing and has been accepted, it is merged to trunk, tested again, then committed. > What I do think are nice features in this workflow are the hooks, where the > pre-hook watches my commit message syntax, and the post-hook triggers a > code rebuild, and also sends a mail to my code reviewers. > > Is anyone here on the list using Fossil with similar hooks? > Or combining Fossil with other tools to achieve the same? > Unfortunately, Fossil's hooks are not documented, so we rely on Fossil;s RSS feed to notify of new commits and tickets. I recall that some people have used Fossil;s post-commit hook to tell a CI server to look at the RSS feed. Much as I would like to use Fossil's hooks, my team's needs are covered by the "editor hook" and the RSS feed. If Fossil's hooks ever get documented, I will look into using them.
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
