> The problem I was referring to is that in order to get a deeper idea > what's going on you want to have a look at the topology of the history. > However I guess this is closely related to my surprise that not both > patches to distro and AFP pushed in proximity have been considered as > one build job. So maybe this is not important.
Sorry, I don't understand. You push some changeset and Jenkins will tell you exactly which Mercurial id is the current tip. What else do you need? > A notification to the committer(s) of the respective changesets. Maybe > Jenkins has already support for that? It does, but currently neither of the following conditions apply: 1) both repositories observe the DVCS standard of including a valid email address in the commit author string; or 2) we have a "testboard_submit" command which asks for an email address or reads it from a configuration or uses desktop notifications; or 3) we can figure out which user pushed a change > The workflow I am alluding to is as follows: > a) You make a change to the distro. > b) You have a rough idea what the consequences are and check the > involved sessions after an analysis. > c) You do some kind of plausibility checking (e.g. building HOL-Library)- > d) You push optimistically to the testboard. > e) Hence you get a rough idea what has still to be done in certain sessions. > f) You check the corresponding sessions. > g) Now you are ready for the next iteration. Right. That would be easier under the presence of a good "testboard_submit" command. As I alluded to in my earlier email this is all well within the realm of possibility (even platform-independent desktop notifications upon completion), but it requires some dedicated implementation effort. Cheers Lars _______________________________________________ isabelle-dev mailing list isabelle-...@in.tum.de https://mailmanbroy.informatik.tu-muenchen.de/mailman/listinfo/isabelle-dev