On 11 Jun 2014, at 19:39 , Russell Branca <chewbra...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'm a huge +1 to this. > > I've been trying to figure out a way to get us able to use the full version > of QuickCheck for a while now. John Hughes has been hinting that they found > a way to make the licensing work for open source, and it seems like this is > it. > > The full version of QuickCheck has some sweet features for testing out > state machines and also the PULSE scheduler which randomizes the execution > of processes to help discover race conditions: > http://www.quviq.com/features.html > > To clarify the questions about another "CI" server, I believe the reason > for this being released as a CI server is as a way to use the full version > of QuickCheck without them having to distribute it. Ah, apologies for missing that particular context. I’m still +100 on this :) Best Jan -- > > > -Russell > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: > >> QC is not a CI tool. It’s more like an additional layer of more thorough >> unit testing that could (depending on their terms) run by our existing CI >> solutions. >> >> I’d be in favour of looking at how we can make it work! >> >> Best >> Jan >> -- >> >> On 11 Jun 2014, at 13:06 , Dirkjan Ochtman <dirk...@ochtman.nl> wrote: >> >>> n Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>> quickcheck made quickcheck-ci available for free for open-sources >> projects: >>>> >>>> http://quickcheck-ci.com/ >>>> >>>> It would be interresting to use it for couchdb imo. Thoughts? >>> >>> If we still use Travis, we already have 2 CI instances, and they have >>> not been able to prevent drawn out release processes like the one for >>> 1.6.0. Unless we somehow think this will magically solve all our CI >>> needs, I'd prefer to instead spend time on improving other parts of >>> the CI we already have. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Dirkjan >> >>
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
