OK for starters I think you're wrong and I will show that. But before doing so, just for laughs, I want to ask you to set my sensitivity gauge on how I shall proceed:
[ ] whisper sweet nothings into my ear, love me and be gentle [ ] let me know what I'm doing wrong but don't embarrass me [ ] be brutally honest potentially revealing my incompetence [ ] rip into me like a porn star :-D Alex On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alex Karasulu wrote: > > > > > > > - - How often shall a build be done (compile/test, > sitegeneration) > > > > We have many possible options. We tried something like kicking CI > > after each commit, but it leads to issues (usually, we don't commit > > code in one big shot, > > > > > > Yes this does happen but it's bad practice on our part. > I don't think so. First because when you commit, you usually have > already checked locally that the server is ok (_usually_ => sometime, > this is not the case ;). Second, because doing more than one commit > allows you to comment more precisely what kind of modification you have > done. > > I personnally don't really like to commit a big shot of code, unless it > is really closely connected. But as I also fix some javadoc, bugs, > warnings while browsing the code, I like to commit in smaller blocks. > > I prefer a build on each commit so it's easier to catch the offending > > commit and isolate it to a user who can be informed immediately while > > they still have a mental stack in memory. > If you kick a build after each commit, you may have many builds kicked > when a lot of commits are done. I also think that it's quite rare that a > commit break the build (it happens, say, every sic months ...), and when > it does, being able to point the offending commit does not really helps > to fix the breakage, because the offender is generally already sleeping :) > > > > I personally would like to know immediately when I goofed something > > while that something is still in my head. > Well, run the tests before committing should be enough, isn't it ? > > Don't get me wrong : I don't say that we should fragment commits as much > as possible, nor I say that knowing which commit has broke a build is > useless, I just say that a CI should be an airbag, when the integration > is the safety belt. never commit without fasten your safety belt > (-Dintegration test), and in case you crash the server, the the airbac > (CI) may save your life ! > > > > > > > -- > -- > cordialement, regards, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > directory.apache.org > > >
