IIRC the reason was that the e4 build consumes almost no time and resources and creating and running a HIPP costs money. I think a e4 build takes 5 min or so, and on average we have 1-3 commits per day (I'm guessing here)
I personally suggested in the past the same as you, so I don't mind a discussion either way. Am 23.01.2015 16:51 schrieb "Mickael Istria" <[email protected]>: > On 01/23/2015 04:37 PM, Lars Vogel wrote: > > This was suggested in the past and the general consensus was that we > should use the platform HIPP as long as we see no resource issues. > > So I'd like to break this consensus and ask for a dedicated HIPP for e4, > which would be separated from Platform one. > e4 and Platform are currently very different projects. One is an > incubator, the other is a very mature piece of code. They don't have the > same constraints nor the same needs. Basically, it's more OK to temporarily > break e4 builds than it is to break Platform. > What were the reasons for mixing Platform and e4 HIPP? (I don't consider > the cost for the Foundation as an "interesting" reason) > > +1 for moving the e4 and the platform build to Hudson. AFAIK the process > in currently controlled by a cron job. > > Moving e4 and moving Platform are very different tasks. My proposal is to > start by e4, on a dedicated Hudson instance. > -- > Mickael Istria > Eclipse developer at JBoss, by Red Hat <http://www.jboss.org/tools> > My blog <http://mickaelistria.wordpress.com> - My Tweets > <http://twitter.com/mickaelistria> > > _______________________________________________ > e4-dev mailing list > [email protected] > To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe > from this list, visit > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev >
_______________________________________________ e4-dev mailing list [email protected] To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/e4-dev
