Sorry, as I said, the last 5 builds are broken by me. and please don't bug me, Steven and me do our best to serve you good builds nightly. Also the everybody-especially-some-people-hated haven builds.
And just to mention: the last builds since Hudson upgrade did not fail because of clover, only because of my stupidness. And by the way, you can always tell people: use the link to download artifacts from "last successful build". Where is the problem? Uwe "Erick Erickson" <[email protected]> schrieb: >RANT WARNING! RANT WARNING! > >When did Lucid enter the picture? This has nothing to do with Lucid. > >As you say this may all be taken care of with the new Hudson, and that >could >be the end of the story, hooray!!!!! I'm perfectly willing to wait and >see >if it settles out. > >What this *does* have to do with, from my perspective, is that Solr >hasn't >had a release in >quite a while. There is lots of goodness in the 3_x and trunk builds. >We see >comments on the user's list of "get a nightly build from trunk or 3_X >and >try it". Which may >be sound advice. But I can absolutely guarantee that a number of >potential >users take >a single glance at the number of "failures" (even if they are bogus) >reported on Hudson and >immediately cross Solr off their list as far as using trunk or 3.x. > >It doesn't matter that 1.4.1 would report the same nonsense if it was >continually built. It >doesn't matter that 3.x and trunk have far better automated tests. It >doesn't matter that >the developers have confidence. I'm talking perception here, not >underlying >code quality. What matters (and I'm talking perception, remember) is >that >out of >the last 10 3.x builds 6 have "failed", as have 5 of the last 10 trunk >builds. Which makes >it easy to dismiss and/or have an exaggerated sense of the instability >of >the 3_x and >trunk builds. > >If there were a solution that allowed us to satisfy both the >developers' >needs and this >perception, I think we should go for it. > >Now, it may well be that the current situation is acceptable to the >community and that our >story should continue to be "be patient, we'll release sometime". But >this >story is getting >old(er). > >But please don't make the mistake of dismissing stodgy corporate >concerns >(and I'm >speaking of my experience at several companies here). They may or may >not be >valid from a technical perspective. It may even be that stodgy >corporations >wouldn't >use open source software anyway. It may be that we just don't care. I'm >not >in a position >to offer any hard evidence either way. Nor, I suspect is most anyone >else >given the recent >Maven kerfluffle.... > >And I have no good response at all to the reply "Ok, wise guy, dive in >and >*make* a >release happen". "I'm too busy" is a pretty lousy excuse <G>... > >OK, rant pretty much over. It would be an easier thing to recommend >trunk or >3_x if there >were some commitment to a release date. Potential users of the newer >branches could >at least plan on using one of them with the expectation that the target >would stop moving >before their go-live date. But as it is some number of users will stay >on >1.4.1 for lack of >the ability to plan. > >FWIW >Erick > >On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The failures from today are just test builds. >> >> Today also a new Hudson was installed... so please simply wait a few >days >> until it settles. >> >> If Lucid wants their customer to use nightly builds, they could setup >ones >> on their servers for their customers? For us Hudson mostly a test >system to >> check our commits. And clover is part of that. >> >> If somebody wants to install a trunk build, they should always svn >checkout >> and build themselves. Then they can even fix to specific rev no and >can >> always reproduce their build. >> >> Uwe >> >> >> >> "Erick Erickson" <[email protected]> schrieb: >> >> >I don't know what other issues you're referring to, but please, >please, >> >please do whatever you can to remove "false failures". It's highly >> >disconcerting to folks we talk to on the message boards to say >> >"Functionality you need is in the nightly builds and you can use >them, >> >but >> >just ignore the errors the build reports. Really, it's OK. Trust >us". >> > >> >Putting on my corporate IT hat I'd have serious reservations about >> >using >> >code that looks broken all the time (even if it's "just a build >> >artifact")... >> > >> >Erick >> > >> >On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Steven A Rowe <[email protected]> >wrote: >> > >> >> Clover causes Hudson nightly builds to fail intermittently. This >is >> >bad, >> >> because it looks like Lucene/Solr tests are failing when they are >> >not. But >> >> Clover is good, so nobody wants to turn it off. >> >> >> >> One possible solution (apologies if this has already been >suggested): >> >make >> >> new nightly Clover-only Hudson builds, and remove Clover from the >> >existing >> >> nightly builds. >> >> >> >> I think that would address all of the issues, wouldn't it? >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> -- >> Uwe Schindler >> H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, 28213 Bremen >> http://www.thetaphi.de >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> -- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, 28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
