Hi, On Freitag, 12. April 2013, Steve McIntyre wrote: > I don't understand the suggestion of Jenkins here at all - it sounds > like major overkill to me.
yes, because you haven't understood the idea yet: check the logs on petterson and then parse these checks with a (dead-simple) jenkins job. So jenkins is just used for notifying about the result - which it does very nicely. > Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that other > people are interested in helping here. But I think we're getting > over-complicated for the sake of checking that checksums files have > been signed...? jenkins.d.n is already setup and adding such jobs is rather trivial. http://jenkins.debian.net/view/d-i_misc/job/d-i_parse_build_logs/ is a rather similar job, which checks whether builds were succesful. (And which is buggy atm, all build logs are fine atm. Gonna fix that now.) cheers, Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
