[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-1830?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17023869#comment-17023869
 ] 

Aaron Coburn commented on JENA-1830:
------------------------------------

+1 for testing only LTS versions.

If the test failures are intermittent and/or inconsistent on TravisCI, it is 
also possible to add {{travis_retry}} to the build command, e.g.:

    script: travis_retry mvn -B clean install

That would cause the tests to run up to three times. If any one passes, then 
the job succeeds.

 It may also be reasonable to allow the non-LTS (latest) JDK version to fail. 
At present, that would be version 13; Java 14 (also non-LTS) will be released 
in March 2020.

 

 

 

 

> travis.yml
> ----------
>
>                 Key: JENA-1830
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-1830
>             Project: Apache Jena
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>            Reporter: Andy Seaborne
>            Priority: Minor
>
> Jena has several JVM versions in the Travis setup. In addition, the Jenkins 
> server has full build and test runs.
> I use Travis (free option) to verify development changes but the build 
> process is not perfect. A complete cycle is 5 travis builds and if any one 
> fails, the job is flagged in error.  The errors are not Jena related - they 
> are build environment issues reflected as maven build problems.
> In the last 50 jobs without development failures,  I got 24 green, 22 failed 
> one or two jobs and 4 build system fails. So I get 40% false reports of code 
> failures.
> The individual fails were distributed as:
> Java8 : 3
> Java9 : 3
> Java10: 4
> Java11: 2
> Java12: 10
> The problem is that with 5 fairly reliable jobs, the probablity of a "failed" 
> build is increased. This is semi-interactive feedback, unlike Jenkins which 
> is a daily set of builds.
> I propose having LTS (8,11, and soon 14).
> Jenkins will provide the more complete testing.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

Reply via email to