Well, not quite: http://vmgump.apache.org/gump/public/xml-fop/
Basics work but it needs some love apparently.

On 23.02.2011 21:10:10 Glenn Adams wrote:
> Right now the nightly build is our CI process.
> 
> On Wednesday, February 23, 2011, Vincent Hennebert <vhenneb...@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> > On 23/02/11 14:42, Glenn Adams wrote:
> >> I guess we disagree, since I believe application quality and code quality
> >> are related. And, further, I believe findbugs at least can identify real,
> >> functional bugs (as opposed to checkstyle).
> >
> > While I agree with the above, I’m with Simon on this. Tests should be
> > done within a continuous integration tool; Nightly builds serve
> > a different purpose.
> >
> > I increasingly feel the need to set up continuous integration for the
> > FOP project. The ASF provides several CI environments (Hudson, among
> > others), at some point in the future I’m going to try them out and set
> > up something. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
> >
> >
> > Vincent
> >
> >
> >> G.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Simon Pepping 
> >> <spepp...@leverkruid.eu>wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:15:34AM -0700, Glenn Adams wrote:
> >>>> OK, understand on the junit headless issue. For checkstyle/findbugs it
> >>> would
> >>>> be useful to fail the nightly build if they do not pass. I will
> >>> investigate
> >>>> the necessary changes to enable this option, which I hope can be adopted.
> >>>
> >>> I would not agree. Nightly builds are a courtesy to the user. It would
> >>> be good if we could guarantee that the builds pass the junit tests.
> >>> But it is not relevant to the user whether they pass checkstyle and
> >>> findbugs rules. These tests address the issue of code quality, not of
> >>> application quality.
> >>>
> >>> Simon
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Simon Pepping <spepp...@leverkruid.eu
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 11:25:20AM -0700, Glenn Adams wrote:
> >>>>>> I notice also that the nightly build target does not run all the
> >>> junit
> >>>>>> tests. It would be better if it run all of them plus checkstyle and
> >>>>>> findbugs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Many junit tests require a display. Nightly builds are run in a
> >>>>> headless configuration, hence I had to disable many junit tests. At
> >>>>> nightly builds there is no one to check checkstyle and findbugs errors
> >>>>> and warnings; therefore there is no point in running them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Simon
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >




Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to