Hi Kellen, No worries, and you did provide a link. I think a Google Hangouts walkthrough would be an efficient way to go about this. What day and time work for you? I am mostly open this week.
matt > On Jul 11, 2016, at 6:50 PM, kellen sunderland <kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Sorry should have provided the link to this page: https://travis-ci.org/ . > If you scroll down a bit on that page there's a Pull Request flow section, > it's the flow I'd be most in favour of. There's also a decent (but rushed) > demo here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uft5KBimzyk . We actually don't > need to do a lot of the work that he demos, i.e. no node or gulp > configuration. Our setup is close enough to default a default java project > that we just have to tell it to build java 8 and then it runs maven > properly. > > Using a CI server would have some aspects that are similar to the branching > document you mention, and some benefits that are a bit orthogonal. Most of > these benefits have to do with unit testing, which isn't covered in the doc. > > First the orthogonal benefits: The main benefit we would get from using CI > is that we guarantee code in our repo is never broken. That is to say > tests always pass and it always builds correctly. CI servers are really > useful to prevent problems where one developer may have everything working > properly on his/her machine, but when they later realize it's not working > on another devs machine. A good example of this is the class-based-lm-test > we pushed recently. It works fine for me locally but it would fail for > anyone without kenlm.so. There are many other examples (javadoc errors, > code style, etc) but what will happen in these cases is we'll see a big > obvious 'The build has problems' message in the PR page on Github. If the > CI server runs of all of our code quality checks and finds that everything > is good we'll get a big 'This PR is ready to merge' message. > > Now to the part that overlaps a bit with branching. There are various > branching strategies that we could adopt for the project. The master / dev > branch one is a possibility. I'd suggest we try commit code strictly in > PRs rather than pushing to git. This would be the equivalent of feature > branching from your link. The reason I'd suggest that approach is that > from what I've seen it'll be dead simple to get working with Github and > Travis, and it gives us the same goal of having a stable master branch. > > If you'd like we can walk through setting this up together on a forked > version of our Github repo. We could do a quick example of how code would > be pushed and merged. I should be available for a google hangout some time > this week if that works for you? > > -Kellen > > > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) < > chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > >> CI = continuous integration :) >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. >> Chief Architect >> Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) >> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA >> Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 >> Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov >> WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Director, Information Retrieval and Data Science Group (IRDS) >> Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department >> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA >> WWW: http://irds.usc.edu/ >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 7/11/16, 4:50 PM, "Matt Post" <p...@cs.jhu.edu> wrote: >> >>> This sounds fine to me. What does CI stand for? >>> >>> Another thing we should do, which might be complementary to this, is just >> be more formal about our process. I had been using this method for a while: >>> >>> http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ >>> >>> Sort of informally, but that could be a good approach (I think someone >> suggested it a while ago). In short: >>> >>> - "master" is always stable and records official releases >>> - development takes place on "develop" >>> - if you need to make an important fix, you branch off master, fix it, >> then merge that into both "master" (as a point release) and "develop" >>> >>> I was using "release" for releases and "master" for develop, but we could >> adopt anything. >>> >>> Kellen, how does this fit with CI? It seems like we could set it up to do >> testing on "master" and "develop" branches --- the first as a sanity check, >> and the second as a test for when we could merge into master? >>> >>> matt >>> >>> >>>> On Jul 11, 2016, at 8:17 AM, kellen sunderland < >> kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> We've made a lot of progress on moving the project over to Apache + >> Maven. >>>> I was wondering if now would be a good time to consider re-thinking how >> we >>>> merge changes into master. The main goal would be to make sure we have >> a >>>> stable master branch that everyone can pull from. >>>> >>>> What I'd suggest is that we only merge into master once CI has completed >>>> testing. This way we can codify style rules, best practices, and make >> sure >>>> builds succeed and tests pass. We can develop new features create PRs >> as >>>> normal, and then get quick feedback if those PRs are mergable. I'd also >>>> suggest we dis-allow manual pushing to the master branch. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure how much effort this would be with the existing CI server, >> but >>>> I could investigate this if someone could grant me admin permissions. >> If >>>> it's a Jenkins server I'm sure it's possible. >>>> >>>> Another option is to use Travis CI. I have taken a quick look at >> Travis CI >>>> and it seems like a quite polished solution. It's free to use for open >>>> source projects. It supports automatically building + testing PRs. The >>>> interface is really clean. It has email notifications and group >>>> administration support. It's got support for multiple (programming) >>>> languages so we could in theory build kenlm as a build step and run >> those >>>> tests. >>>> >>>> Here's some more info on what the workflow with Travis-CI and PRs would >> be >>>> https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/pull-requests >>>> >>>> What do you guys think? Is there a strong preference for using Jenkins >>>> from the Apache community? Would everyone be ok with avoiding direct >>>> pushes to master? >>>> >>>> -Kellen >>> >>
