I don't think we need that much coordination -- we just need a read-only account and the way that server is configured you can self-service create one. I took the liberty to register one as [email protected] and set it up to get notifications from the Lucene.NET Core Build configuration. Presuming I got stuff setup right the list should get a notification in 10 minutes.
Is there a facility I can send the credentials to this account for safekeeping? On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes - can you coordinate with Maarten on this please? > > -- > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> > Freelance Developer & Consultant > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/> > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Wyatt Barnett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Thanks for the answers -- I do agree that sounds like what is going on > with > > the tests. If you drill down a bit you can get the failure messages which > > read like race conditions -- like file access errors and such. > > > > The build trigger has been re-enabled so you should get a build with the > > next PR. > > > > To get the list notified we'd need to create a fake TC user for the list > > and then subscribe that to the project. Would that work? > > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > > To answer your questions: > > > > > > 1. I think we can waive code coverage for now. Especially since we are > > > basically porting tests from Java Lucene and at this point code > coverage > > > will have no effect on our process. > > > > > > 2. This is probably a result of a race condition / test instability. I > > > don't think it has anything with which repo you read from, just the > core > > > instability of some of the moving parts. > > > > > > 3. "run after master branch has an update" is the way to go. Can you > set > > it > > > up to send notifications to the dev list please? > > > > > > I was referring to https://github.com/ParticularLabs/GitVersion but > for > > > now > > > we can keep with vanilla git flow / github flow > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > > > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant > > > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/> > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Wyatt Barnett < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, sorry for the radio silence but we are getting very > close. > > > > > > > > The basic CI setup where we grab the latest and then run an automated > > > build > > > > and test was fairly easy to get worked out. But getting it running > > right > > > > has been a bit of a challenge. The main stumbling block the last few > > > weeks > > > > was that, if I ran the test suite locally, I was getting through it > in > > > > 15-20 minutes. Once I went to the build servers this stretched to 2+ > > > hours. > > > > After playing a game of "what am I doing differently" I realized I > was > > > > causing this delay. TeamCity has a feature for running test coverage > on > > > > your tests. I had enabled this on our tests because test coverage is > > > great > > > > and part of the point of doing this. It turns out test coverage also > > very > > > > slow which was causing this time issue -- not something horribly > fubar > > in > > > > the code or the tests. > > > > > > > > The other problem I am seeing is that there seems to be some > > variabiltiy > > > in > > > > what tests fail here are the last 3 test runs, all with zero code > > > changes: > > > > * #45: 1178 tests failed, 53 new failures, 1476 passed, 119 ignored > > > > * #44: 1170 tests failed, 49 new failures, 1483 passed, 119 ignored > > > > * #42: 1178 tests failed, 50 new failures, 1476 passed, 119 ignored > > > > * #41: 1178 tests failed, 58 new failures, 1475 passed, 119 ignored > > > > > > > > In this context a "new" failure means that the test had passed in a > > > > previous iteration and then failed anew, potentially indicating some > > > broken > > > > code was introduced. Unfortunately there were zero code changes > during > > > any > > > > or all of those tests -- I was just trying to get a consistent run > > given > > > > consistent input. I also have seen a similar pattern on my private > > setup > > > > where I have done the lion's share of this development work. > > > > > > > > In terms of sources, I am successfully running against the apache > > github > > > > mirror. The official apache git repo is still hanging about 90 tests > > into > > > > things and I'm not sure why -- it appears to be the same commit hash > as > > > the > > > > github branch (2d7533d4e5a3278f242c2915c6f8dfd10ea77847) so it is > > > > presumably the same code involved. Will investigate this further but > > for > > > > now we are pointed at https://github.com/apache/lucenenet.git. > > > > > > > > In terms of proceeding here, here are the questions: > > > > > > > > * How important is constantly running / reported code coverage to us? > > > Worth > > > > having a very lengthly build process? Is it something where we setup > a > > > > single weekly code-coverage reporting job? > > > > * Does anyone have any insight into the inconsistent behavior by some > > of > > > > the tests? There are CSV exports of all the test runs so we could > > > probably > > > > do some anaysis to focus the targets. > > > > * Is there any difference I am *not* seeing with the ASF repo? Why is > > the > > > > github one working and the presumably identical ASF one not? > > > > * What kind of schedule do we want this running on? Right now it has > > been > > > > manual, mainly because I didn't want to loose 3 hour test cycles on > the > > > > world. But we are past that a bit so I think we can switch it to "run > > > after > > > > master branch has an update" at this point and not overstay our > welcome > > > > over at codebetter and get to the kind of feedback you all wanted. > > > > > > > > Still on the todo list [with questions]: > > > > > > > > * Get a better build system in place in general to make room for . . > . > > . > > > > * Setup nuget generation and other packaging -- really kind of moot > > until > > > > we get tests passing in general but still notable. > > > > * Take a dive into integrating with the git flow system Itamar > > mentioned > > > > someplace but I can't seem to find at the moment. > > > > > > > > Hope this helps explain a bit, please let me know if you've got > > > questions. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko < > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Wyatt, I wonder if you have any good news for us on this? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > > > > > http://code972.com | @synhershko <https://twitter.com/synhershko> > > > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant > > > > > Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Wyatt Barnett < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > So, after fighting a number of teething problems -- many of them > > self > > > > > > inflicted -- I've got a solid, repeatable test run that finishes > in > > > 38 > > > > > > minutes or so on our hardware. > > > > > > > > > > > > I can certainly reprise this setup over on > teamcity.codebetter.com > > > > > without > > > > > > much effort. We will need to merge some changes into things > before > > > > > > proceeding -- the current state of tests in the trunk will just > > hang > > > if > > > > > we > > > > > > tried to run them there. I'm guessing I'll need to sign a > > > contributing > > > > > > agreement here as I don't believe I filed one. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Wyatt Barnett < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds good, we'll be [Explicit()] with reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko < > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Yes, but Explicit() will help us isolate those issues from > other > > > > real > > > > > > bugs > > > > > > >> we can concentrate on solving in parallel. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Itamar Syn-Hershko > > > > > > >> http://code972.com | @synhershko < > > https://twitter.com/synhershko> > > > > > > >> Freelance Developer & Consultant > > > > > > >> Author of RavenDB in Action <http://manning.com/synhershko/> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Wyatt Barnett < > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > [Ignore()] is good too, I actually prefer a slightly nuanced > > > > version > > > > > > >> called > > > > > > >> > [Explicit()] as that lets you still fire off the test from > > > > resharper > > > > > > or > > > > > > >> > nunit gui. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > That said I proposed Assert.Fail() here because we can put > the > > > > > failure > > > > > > >> > point at the *exact* point where the folks should start > > > debugging > > > > > this > > > > > > >> from > > > > > > >> > versus having them start a at a whole test or test fixture. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko < > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Don't forget to stick a reason to the Ignore property tho! > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > -- > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > > > > > > >> > > http://code972.com | @synhershko < > > > > https://twitter.com/synhershko> > > > > > > >> > > Freelance Developer & Consultant > > > > > > >> > > Author of RavenDB in Action < > http://manning.com/synhershko/ > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:55 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko < > > > > > > >> [email protected] > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Or just Skip (or Ignore, however that's called in NUnit) > > :) > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > -- > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > > > > > > >> > > > http://code972.com | @synhershko < > > > > > https://twitter.com/synhershko> > > > > > > >> > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant > > > > > > >> > > > Author of RavenDB in Action < > > http://manning.com/synhershko/ > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Wyatt Barnett < > > > > > > >> > [email protected] > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> 5 minutes sounds like a reasonable going in > proposition. > > > That > > > > > > said > > > > > > >> > > >> depending on how many of these there are there might > well > > > be > > > > a > > > > > > >> *lot* > > > > > > >> > of > > > > > > >> > > 5 > > > > > > >> > > >> minute waits. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> Would it help if I just stuck Assert.Fails() where I > run > > > into > > > > > > these > > > > > > >> > > loops > > > > > > >> > > >> for the folks smarter than I to run down? > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Itamar Syn-Hershko < > > > > > > >> > [email protected] > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > 5 mins max for one test maybe? > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > To fix that infinite loop we need to revisit the > > original > > > > > Java > > > > > > >> code, > > > > > > >> > > >> most > > > > > > >> > > >> > likely its porting of an iterator-style code that > went > > > > > wrong. I > > > > > > >> hope > > > > > > >> > > to > > > > > > >> > > >> > have time to look at it next week, please anyone else > > who > > > > > feels > > > > > > >> like > > > > > > >> > > it > > > > > > >> > > >> > beat me to it.. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > -- > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > Itamar Syn-Hershko > > > > > > >> > > >> > http://code972.com | @synhershko < > > > > > > https://twitter.com/synhershko > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > Freelance Developer & Consultant > > > > > > >> > > >> > Author of RavenDB in Action < > > > > http://manning.com/synhershko/> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Wyatt Barnett < > > > > > > >> > > >> [email protected]> > > > > > > >> > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > So, after the 2nd day of watching the tests just > > spin I > > > > > > decided > > > > > > >> > > that a > > > > > > >> > > >> > > little visibility might make sense as something > just > > > was > > > > > not > > > > > > >> > adding > > > > > > >> > > up > > > > > > >> > > >> > -- I > > > > > > >> > > >> > > expected some failing tests, and some long-running > > > tests > > > > > but > > > > > > >> there > > > > > > >> > > >> just > > > > > > >> > > >> > > ain't enough data here to keep something running > for > > 8+ > > > > > > hours. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > Anyhow, I stood up VS and the debugger and started > > > > looking > > > > > > into > > > > > > >> > > things > > > > > > >> > > >> > and > > > > > > >> > > >> > > I found that I was hitting at least one infiinte > loop > > > > > dealing > > > > > > >> with > > > > > > >> > > >> > > randomized values -- specifically at > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/lucene.net/blob/master/src/Lucene.Net.TestFramework/Index/BasePostingsFormatTestCase.cs#L394 > > > > > > >> > > >> > > ; > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > Anyhow, I'm not sure how to proceed here as if we > > want > > > > test > > > > > > >> > > automation > > > > > > >> > > >> > the > > > > > > >> > > >> > > tests need to run through in a reasonable amount of > > > time > > > > > but > > > > > > I > > > > > > >> > don't > > > > > > >> > > >> know > > > > > > >> > > >> > > enough about the project to know what should run or > > > not. > > > > > One > > > > > > >> > thought > > > > > > >> > > >> > would > > > > > > >> > > >> > > be to use nunit timeout attributes ( > > > > > > >> > > >> > > http://www.nunit.org/index.php?p=timeout&r=2.5) to > > > > > constrain > > > > > > >> > > things. > > > > > > >> > > >> If > > > > > > >> > > >> > so > > > > > > >> > > >> > > what is a reasonable timeout? > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > I'm quite open to other, non kludgy thoughts too . > . > > . > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Wyatt Barnett < > > > > > > >> > > >> [email protected] > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > I looked over GitVersion -- looks like a great > fit > > > for > > > > > this > > > > > > >> > > project > > > > > > >> > > >> > > though > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > it will require a bit of forethought about > > branching > > > > > > >> strategies. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > I'll take a run at getting it integrated once I > get > > > > > through > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > test > > > > > > >> > > >> > > suite > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > running successfully. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Itamar > > Syn-Hershko > > > < > > > > > > >> > > >> > [email protected] > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> Inline > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> Itamar Syn-Hershko > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> http://code972.com | @synhershko < > > > > > > >> > https://twitter.com/synhershko > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> Freelance Developer & Consultant > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> Author of RavenDB in Action < > > > > > > http://manning.com/synhershko/ > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Wyatt Barnett < > > > > > > >> > > >> > [email protected] > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks. I registered at CodeBetter.com under > > wwb. > > > Is > > > > > > there > > > > > > >> > any > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > documentation on their TeamCity setup or > someone > > > > who I > > > > > > can > > > > > > >> > > reach > > > > > > >> > > >> out > > > > > > >> > > >> > > to > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > regarding questions about the build > environment? > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> I'm asking around, will let you know > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > Thanks for the rundown -- things sound pretty > > > > > > >> straightforward > > > > > > >> > > and > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> doable. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > One thing we'll need to think a bit a bout is > > how > > > do > > > > > we > > > > > > >> want > > > > > > >> > to > > > > > > >> > > >> > manage > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > git branching strategy to best integrate with > > > > TeamCity > > > > > > and > > > > > > >> > best > > > > > > >> > > >> > > automate > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > the release cycle. Doing things like > constantly > > > > > > building a > > > > > > >> > > >> "trunk" > > > > > > >> > > >> > and > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > releasing based on tags are very doable. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> Are you familiar with > > > > > > >> > > https://github.com/ParticularLabs/GitVersion > > > > > > >> > > >> ? > > > > > > >> > > >> > > I'll > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> be interested in adopting this to our process. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > I've grabbed the code, looks like things are > > > pretty > > > > > > clean > > > > > > >> in > > > > > > >> > > >> terms > > > > > > >> > > >> > of > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> being > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > able to build and run cleanly. One question -- > > I > > > > > > started > > > > > > >> > > running > > > > > > >> > > >> > the > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> test > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > suite, it appears to execute about 80% > > > successfully. > > > > > I'm > > > > > > >> > > >> presuming > > > > > > >> > > >> > > this > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> is > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > because we are still porting 4.8.0 here and is > > > > > expected > > > > > > >> > > behavior. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > Please > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > confirm. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> Yes, we still have some failing tests. The hope > is > > > to > > > > > also > > > > > > >> > > utilize > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> TeamCity's reports to measure the affects of > > > internal > > > > > > >> changes > > > > > > >> > we > > > > > > >> > > >> make > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> faster. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > I'll take a few stabs at a build cycle over > the > > > next > > > > > few > > > > > > >> days > > > > > > >> > > and > > > > > > >> > > >> > see > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> what > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > I can shake out. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> Thanks! > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Itamar > > > > Syn-Hershko < > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> [email protected]> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Thanks Wyatt > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Can you please register at > > > > > > >> http://teamcity.codebetter.com/ > > > > > > >> > > and > > > > > > >> > > >> > send > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> me > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > your > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > user name (privately if you prefer)? > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Please use the master branch of our Apache > git > > > > > git:// > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > git.apache.org/lucene.net.git - or the > mirror > > > at > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > https://github.com/apache/lucene.net (would > > > > rather > > > > > > you > > > > > > >> use > > > > > > >> > > the > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> original > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > one > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > to avoid delays) > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > The way I see it is this: > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Lucene.Net.TestFramework compiles and > > > generates > > > > a > > > > > > >> nuget > > > > > > >> > > >> package > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Lucene.Net.Core and Lucene.Net.Tests > > compiles, > > > > > > taking > > > > > > >> > > >> dependency > > > > > > >> > > >> > > on > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Lucene.Net.TestFramework > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Lucene.Net.Tests is run and if successful > > > > versions > > > > > > the > > > > > > >> > > build > > > > > > >> > > >> and > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > generates nuget on the local feed (we also > > have > > > a > > > > > > MyGet > > > > > > >> > > >> account to > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> work > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > with) > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Same process to all sub-projects: > > > > > Lucene.Net.Queries > > > > > > >> for > > > > > > >> > > >> > example: > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Compile > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Compile Lucene.Net.Tests.Queries > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Run tests from Lucene.Net.Tests.Queries > > > (take > > > > > > >> > dependency > > > > > > >> > > on > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Lucene.Net.TestFramework) > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Create nuget for Lucene.Net.Queries > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > * Every sub-project should be re-compiled > and > > > > tests > > > > > > >> re-run > > > > > > >> > if > > > > > > >> > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > projects > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > it depends on have changed (you can probably > > > > > separate > > > > > > >> the > > > > > > >> > > >> cases by > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > defining > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > watch folders under src\) > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > We can then iterate from there. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > I updated the README to explain the new > > > structure > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/lucene.net/blob/master/README.md#files > > > > > > >> > > >> > - > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> let > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > me > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > know if you have any questions. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > http://code972.com | @synhershko < > > > > > > >> > > >> https://twitter.com/synhershko> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Freelance Developer & Consultant > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Author of RavenDB in Action < > > > > > > >> > http://manning.com/synhershko/> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 5:51 AM, Wyatt > > Barnett < > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> [email protected]> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > That would be great -- let me know what I > > need > > > > to > > > > > do > > > > > > >> to > > > > > > >> > > help > > > > > > >> > > >> > make > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> that > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > happen. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > In the meantime I've got a teamcity server > > to > > > > work > > > > > > >> with > > > > > > >> > > here, > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> should I > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > be > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > looking at > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > https://github.com/synhershko/lucene.net/tree/Lucene.Net_4.8.0 > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > as the project layout. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > Also, what is envisioned for the output of > > the > > > > > build > > > > > > >> > > >> pipeline? > > > > > > >> > > >> > > Many > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > things > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > are within the art of the possible. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Prescott > > > > Nasser < > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > [email protected]> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > Would love the help setting this up - > > Itamar > > > > do > > > > > > you > > > > > > >> > know > > > > > > >> > > >> if we > > > > > > >> > > >> > > can > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > provide > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > Wyatt access for this? > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > From: Wyatt Barnett<mailto: > > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > Sent: 11/14/2014 4:26 PM > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > To: [email protected]<mailto: > > > > > > >> > > >> [email protected]> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > Subject: Re: Setting up the CI pipeline > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > I do a lot of CI and CD and I've got > loads > > > of > > > > > seat > > > > > > >> time > > > > > > >> > > >> with > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > TeamCity, > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > I > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > would be happy to help the cause. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 5:49 AM, Itamar > > > > > > Syn-Hershko > > > > > > >> < > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > [email protected]> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Heya, > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > So JetBrains and CodeBetter have > setup a > > > > > > TeamCity > > > > > > >> > > account > > > > > > >> > > >> > for > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> us - > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://teamcity.codebetter.com/project.html?projectId=LuceneNet&tab=projectOverview > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > I have asked them to add Prescott and > > Troy > > > > as > > > > > > >> > > >> collaborators, > > > > > > >> > > >> > > so > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> we > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > 3 > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > have > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > access to change stuff there. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > The idea is to have every sub-project > > > (Core, > > > > > > >> Codecs, > > > > > > >> > > >> > Queries, > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > Facets, > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > etc) > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > compile and available as a nuget > > package, > > > > and > > > > > > also > > > > > > >> > > >> > thoroughly > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > tested > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > via > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > the test agents on TeamCity. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Prescott, Troy - you said you can work > > on > > > > > > setting > > > > > > >> > this > > > > > > >> > > >> up, > > > > > > >> > > >> > > will > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> be > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > happy > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > for you to go ahead and do this now. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > If there's anyone else on this list > who > > > has > > > > > > >> > experience > > > > > > >> > > >> with > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > TeamCity > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > and > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > setting up CI pipelines, please drop > us > > a > > > > line > > > > > > if > > > > > > >> you > > > > > > >> > > are > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> willing > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > to > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > help > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > with this effort. > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > -- > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Itamar Syn-Hershko > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > http://code972.com | @synhershko < > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> https://twitter.com/synhershko> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Freelance Developer & Consultant > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > Author of RavenDB in Action < > > > > > > >> > > >> http://manning.com/synhershko/ > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
