Shaun is "Feeling all excited"
On 22 Feb, 19:38, Ruben Willems <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all > > I committed the fix for the lastchangelabeller, > > @P-J > can you double check that the committed version is correct? > > just to be sure it is ok, the release is near ;-) > > with kind regards > Ruben Willems > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Ruben Willems > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Hi > > > for the legal mumbo jumbo, you must explicitely say that you comply with > > the contributor license > > you can read it here > > >http://confluence.public.thoughtworks.org/display/CCNET/Contributor+L... > > > just mail to the devel list that you comply with it, and we can start > > integrating the patch > > > with kind regards > > Ruben Willems > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:36 AM, P-J <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> I've submitted a patch to the ccnet-devel list as a reply to lukes > >> initial patch in the thread "Improving the LastChangeLabeler". > >> This is my first patch contribution, so I hope I got everything right, > >> and that the developers can integrate the patch into the trunk for the > >> 1.4.3 release. > > >> //P-J > > >> On 19 Feb, 08:23, Ruben Willems <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Hi > > >> > if you can make it this week, > >> > maybe we can squeeze it into the 1.4.3 release > > >> > with kind regards > >> > Ruben Willems > > >> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Per-Jonny Käck <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > Great, I think we have reached some kind of consensus now. > >> > > I will look into creating a new patch using the TortoiseSVN client. > >> > > The LastChangeLabeller behavior will be: > > >> > > With prefix="pre" and allowDuplicateSubsequentLabels=false: > >> > > pre1234.1 > >> > > pre1234.2 > >> > > pre1235.1 > >> > > ->change configuration file and set prefix="new", then trigger a > >> forced > >> > > build without modifications > >> > > pre1235.2 > >> > > new1236.1 > >> > > new1236.2 > > >> > > With prefix="pre" and allowDuplicateSubsequentLabels=true: > >> > > pre1234 > >> > > pre1234 > >> > > pre1235 > >> > > ->change configuration file and set prefix="new", then trigger a > >> forced > >> > > build without modifications > >> > > pre1235 > >> > > new1236 > >> > > new1236 > > >> > > To minimize the impact on existing projects, > >> > > allowDuplicateSubsequentLabels=true will be the default behavior. > > >> > > //P-J > > >> > > 2009/2/18 [email protected] <[email protected]> > > >> > >> Well, I'd like to thank you to you guys for bringing this back up > >> > >> again. I did find the patch for lastchangelabeller on the developers > >> > >> forum, but Im unsure of how to implement it. All I need it for > >> > >> lastchangelabeller to stop throwing an unknown if there is no > >> > >> transactions between builds. > >> > >> I think my requirements are similiar to Shauns....having it increment > >> > >> with a xxx.1 xxx.2 is fine by me. > > >> > >> On Feb 18, 6:51 am, Ruben Willems <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi... > > >> > >> > read more » > > >> > >> > just sparsely following this discussion > >> > >> > each labeler stands on its own, thre is no reletion between 2 > >> labellers. > > >> > >> > the more the labellers act the same in a given situation, the > >> better of > >> > >> > course, > >> > >> > but this does not have to be. If there is a good reason, why not do > >> it. > > >> > >> > there is a big change between the datalabeller and the default > >> labeller > >> > >> ;-) > > >> > >> > Do keep in mind that when you make a breaking change, is not fun. > >> > >> > So try to keep the existing default behaviour if possible. > >> > >> > Adding extra properties is not a problem, as long as this doe snot > >> > >> result in > >> > >> > stuff like this > > >> > >> > bool UseNewSetup > > >> > >> > and than somewhere in code > > >> > >> > if (UseNewSetup) > >> > >> > { > >> > >> > bla bla > > >> > >> > } > > >> > >> > in this case it would make more sense to create a new labeller with > >> the > >> > >> > desired behaviour > > >> > >> > my 2 cents > > >> > >> > with kind regards > >> > >> > Ruben Willems > > >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Per-Jonny Käck <[email protected] > > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > > I can agree with you that either forcing .nnn for all labels, or > >> > >> pre1234 > >> > >> > > followed by pre1234.2 would be more logical. > >> > >> > > It's just that the FileLabeller is implemented as pre1234 > >> followed by > >> > >> > > 1234-1. > >> > >> > > And lukes propsed patch seems to follow the same scheme. > >> > >> > > The question is if it is better have a consistent behavior > >> between the > >> > >> > > label implementations, or a logical implementation of the > >> > >> LastChangeLabeller > >> > >> > > only??? > >> > >> > > Is there any CruiseControl.NET developer that has an opinion? > > >> > >> > > //P-J > > >> > >> > > 2009/2/18 CinnamonDonkey <[email protected]> > > >> > >> > >> Sounds good to me P-J, > > >> > >> > >> The only comment I would have but it's just me being pedantic > >> now is > >> > >> > >> that if the labeller is allowing the post fix of '.nnn' then all > >> > >> > >> labels should follow the same scheme: > > >> > >> > >> pre1234.1 > >> > >> > >> pre1234.2 > >> > >> > >> pre1235.1 > > >> > >> > >> ...and not: > > >> > >> > >> pre1234 > >> > >> > >> pre1234.1 > >> > >> > >> pre1235 > > >> > >> > >> ...as this does not seem logical to me. At the very least it > >> should > >> > >> > >> be: > > >> > >> > >> pre1234 (<-- is effectively pre1234.1 as it was the > >> first > >> > >> > >> build with the label 1234) > >> > >> > >> pre1234.2 > > >> > >> > >> Like I say, I'm just being pedantic. > > >> > >> > >> Shaun ;-) > > >> > >> > >> On 18 Feb, 10:48, P-J <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > Yes, we are talking about the same thing concerning duplicate > >> > >> labels. > > >> > >> > >> > About my next paragaraph, it only applies if you have > >> specified a > >> > >> > >> > prefix. > >> > >> > >> > Let's say you are currently using the string "pre" as prefix, > >> and > >> > >> you > >> > >> > >> > have set AllowDuplicateSubsequentLabels=true for our new > >> > >> > >> > LastChangeLabeller. > >> > >> > >> > Using your examples, the labels would look like this: > >> > >> > >> > pre1234 > >> > >> > >> > pre1234 > >> > >> > >> > pre1235 > >> > >> > >> > At this point change your configuration file and set the label > >> > >> prefix > >> > >> > >> > to the string "new", then force a new build without > >> modifications, > >> > >> and > >> > >> > >> > the labels will be as follows. > >> > >> > >> > pre1235 > >> > >> > >> > new1236 > >> > >> > >> > new1237 > > >> > >> > >> > With AllowDuplicateSubsequentLabels=False the labels would be: > >> > >> > >> > pre1234 > >> > >> > >> > pre1234.1 > >> > >> > >> > pre1235 > >> > >> > >> > At this point change your configuration file and set the label > >> > >> prefix > >> > >> > >> > to the string "new", then force a new build without > >> modifications, > >> > >> and > >> > >> > >> > the labels will be as follows. > >> > >> > >> > pre1235.1 > >> > >> > >> > new1236 > >> > >> > >> > new1237 > > >> > >> > >> > Personally I think this behavior would be ok, i.e. that the > >> change > >> > >> of > >> > >> > >> > the prefix will not be visible until you have a new build with > >> > >> > >> > modifications. > >> > >> > >> > The good thing is about this solution is that it is easy to > >> use and > >> > >> > >> > understand, and doesn't restrict your choice of prefix in any > >> way. > > >> > >> > >> > //P-J > > >> > >> > >> > On 18 Feb, 11:29, CinnamonDonkey < > >> [email protected]> > >> > >> > >> > wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > Hi P-J, > > >> > >> > >> > > Adding a new attribute, "AllowDuplicateSubsequentLabels" > >> sounds > >> > >> like a > >> > >> > >> > > good plan as it allows more flexibility to the end user and > >> > >> satisfies > >> > >> > >> > > my own requirements. > > >> > >> > >> > > I'm not sure I fully understand the next paragraph, but I > >> think > >> > >> we are > >> > >> > >> > > talking about the same thing. > > >> > >> > >> > > If I can end up with: > > >> > >> > >> > > 1234 > >> > >> > >> > > 1234 > >> > >> > >> > > 1235 > >> > >> > >> > > 1235 > >> > >> > >> > > 1236 > >> > >> > >> > > 1237 > > >> > >> > >> > > I'll be a very happy chappie, but I could live with: > > >> > >> > >> > > 1234.1 > >> > >> > >> > > 1234.2 > >> > >> > >> > > 1235.1 > >> > >> > >> > > 1235.2 > >> > >> > >> > > 1236.1 > >> > >> > >> > > 1237.1 > > >> > >> > >> > > If it was a necessary compromise but I think the post fix > >> should > >> > >> be > >> > >> > >> > > optional. > > >> > >> > >> > > Shaun > > >> > >> > >> > > On 18 Feb, 08:25, Per-Jonny Käck <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > > > Ok, then a "AllowDuplicateSubsequentLabels" attribute > >> (e.g. > >> > >> used by > >> > >> > >> the > >> > >> > >> > > > FileLabeller) should be added to lukes patch, since his > >> patch > >> > >> always > >> > >> > >> > > > increments the latest label. > > >> > >> > >> > > > Do you have any problems with that if you change the > >> prefix in > >> > >> your > >> > >> > >> > > > configuration file, then you won't see the new prefix > >> until > >> > >> there is > >> > >> > >> a new > >> > >> > >> > > > build with modifications, since builds without > >> modifications > >> > >> will be > >> > >> > >> > > > labelled based on the last label. I think this behavior > >> would > >> > >> be ok, > >> > >> > >> and it > >> > >> > >> > > > makes the source code much cleaner. > > >> > >> > >> > > > //P-J > > >> > >> > >> > > > 2009/2/18 CinnamonDonkey <[email protected]> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > Our requirement is that each build is labelled with the > >> > >> change > >> > >> > >> list > >> > >> > >> > > > > number (we use Perforce) used to create that build. This > >> > >> means > >> > >> > >> that we > >> > >> > >> > > > > can relate any particular build directly back to a > >> specific > >> > >> point > >> > >> > >> in > >> > >> > >> > > > > the source history. Anything else is meaningless. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > Since the change list numbers are unique an represent a > >> > >> particular > >> > >> > >> > > > > moment in time this should be perfectly possible. > > >> > >> > >> > > > > - If a > > ... > > read more »
