We had no more nightly build failures since hudson update that were caused by clover. The recent ones are not caused by that, they are caused by a committed "nocommit" by Shaie :-)
Uwe ----- Uwe Schindler H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen http://www.thetaphi.de eMail: [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Miller [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 4:33 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Hudson nightly build failures due to Clover > > Heh - I'm with you - I think it would be awesome to fix :) I think the other > devs think so too. I think that you prodding the issue is a smart move. We do > want to encourage users to use the nightlies - lets more people try out Uwe's > questionable code early on ;) - fake failures are a downer though - it probably > could easily affect how some users perceive the stableness. Though if you > are that concerned, you would hopefully read the message and realize that > something about the message is off - it says all tests passed. Not ideal, but I > wonder how much it *actually* hurts trunk/nightly use. I have not seen > much mail about it yet... > > But then again, I work at lucid too, so I'm probably reading the same script > you are ;) > > Bottom line though - everyone knows of the problem. An acceptable > solution has not yet been found it seems. I guess we are waiting for the bug > fix to come out. If anyone really wants it fixed before that - prob going to > have to put on your thinking cap and dive in with some concrete > suggestions/action. > > - Mark > > On Jan 22, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Erick Erickson wrote: > > > 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] > > > > > > - Mark Miller > lucidimagination.com > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional > commands, e-mail: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
