On 17/01/2019 16:11, Thanh Ha wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 2:04 AM Robert Varga <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On 17/01/2019 07:13, Anil Belur via RT wrote: > > On Wed Jan 16 13:31:24 2019, [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > >> Adding helpdesk. > >> > >> I suppose SET_JDK_VERSION should not be an array. > >> > >> -Lori > > > > Greetings Lori: > > > > This approach for passing multiple java-versions (openjdk8 and > openjdk11) seem > > to work for the maven-verify jobs but not for the javadocs-verify > jobs. This is because JJB ${job-name} expansion is handling the > ${java-version} when the job name has a variable name included. When > the job name does not have the ${java-version} this is passed as a > list to the job. > > > > I think we may need to make the scripts a little intelligence to > handle these scenarios or simply fix this in the job which requires > to be changed in global-jjb. I've have noted this in Jira and will > work on fixing this in global-jjb to make sure this works properly > for other jobs too. > > > > https://jira.linuxfoundation.org/browse/RELENG-1648 > > Actually, what is the compelling reason to have a separate javadoc > verify job? > > I mean javadocs are being generated in normal verify jobs, hence it > looks to me like duplicate work (given that the javadoc job needs to > also generate/compile sources). > > > There is non other than when we started building it, we weren't 100% > sure how it would work yet and wanted to build it separate to separate > it from our production jobs. Now that this is a part of our regular > workflow and we have a better sense of how these javadocs are built we > could move the relevant logic into the maven-verify and maven-merge jobs.
I agree, and as far as I understand there is no value in javadoc-verify jobs and hence we can immediately remove all of them, if everyone agrees. > Robert, we had a separate email thread discussing just this over the > holidays but our conversation lost steam. It was titled "Reworking MRI > javadoc". I've bumped the thread to restart the converstation. Yes, and this deals with the javadoc-merge jobs only and is completely separate :) Let's follow up on that thread. Regards, Robert
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opendaylight.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
