On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for running Junit after successful build-$branch, build-marvin, > build-docs, build-apidocs etc. But in my opinion packages should be built > even if Junit tests fail as some additional features/check-ins can be > testable. > > Blocker issues can be logged for Junit failures and pursue them in parallel. > For time being it is ok as there are not that many Junit tests and 1 or 2 > failures can get fixed pretty fast. When the suite becomes sizable, if there > are multiple failures, fixing them may take some time and not having latest > build would cause delays in release cycles. >
That is a good point. There needs to be at least one build a day - though I'd like to be testing the ability to build RPMs more frequently than once a day - just too large of a volume of change otherwise IMO.
