we should add a page that analyzes each schedule for cycles...that would be a cool little feature
On 11/8/06, Emmanuel Venisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, we need a global ordering, so projects will be build independently of groups, because in some case a cycle can be created between groups (not necessary between projects). In case a cycle is detected between projects, continuum can't find the build order. In this case, I think we need to sort a little project so will reduce build errors. So if we have a cycle, we can sort projects in a group and build them. In most of case (maven projects), we don't have a cycle in a group. Emmanuel Brett Porter a écrit : > I think you want global ordering. Grouping should just be a > display/management technique, not anything that changes how projects are > handled. > > However, this needs to be reviewed as a whole (which I think Emmanuel is > doing), such that builds can be triggered when their dependencies change > which will help with the ordering as it won't be dependant on them all > being triggered at the same time? > > - Brett > > On 08/11/2006, at 9:51 AM, Jesse McConnell wrote: > >> I was reading through the DefaultContinuum.buildProjects( Schedule id >> ) method and after discussing some things with Emmanuel...I think we >> have a problem here. When I went through and refactored things to >> support a more Project Group centric setup with continuum I changed >> this method a bit. >> >> Originally, this method would gather up all projects that would be >> triggered by that schedule, run them all through the project sorter >> and then build each in sequence. >> >> When I added the project groups to this mix, I changed things to be on >> a project group basis, so that on a project group by project group >> basis it would order the projects and build them. At the time I >> thought this was the way to go...but maybe not. >> >> 17:14 <evenisse> we need to take all projects from all groups, sort them >> 17:15 <evenisse> if we don't have a cycle, it's ok and we build all >> 17:15 <evenisse> if it isn't ok, we sort project by group >> >> For example, if we loaded up a Plexus group and a Maven group...the >> way it currently is (with my change) it would process all triggered >> builds within one group and then process all triggered builds in the >> other group. This would not take into account potential dependencies >> between the two. >> >> Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I am inclined to fix it up so >> its like it used to be where all projects across all project groups >> are thrown into the graph....I keep feeling like I am missing >> something wrong with this, but I can't pin it down. >> >> One thing that perhaps Emmanuel could explain a bit more is the third >> comment there. In our conversation on this he said that he thinks >> that the cycles are cropping up all the time, and if thats the case >> then we are building a lot of unordered builds which would account for >> some of the strange reports we have been getting. Are you saying that >> if we detect the cycle we default back to the way I am doing it now? >> order within the groups... >> >> jesse >> >> >> >> >> >> --jesse mcconnell >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
-- jesse mcconnell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
