Thanks; committed in rev. 1337484
Jacopo
On May 12, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> That's fine.
>
> +1
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 5/11/2012 1:56 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> Adrian, can I proceed with the proposed change then?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jacopo
>>
>> On Apr 24, 2012, at 2:36 PM
That's fine.
+1
-Adrian
On 5/11/2012 1:56 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian, can I proceed with the proposed change then?
Thanks,
Jacopo
On Apr 24, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for the tip!
-Adrian
On 4/24/2012 1:10 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Adrian, can I proceed with the proposed change then?
Thanks,
Jacopo
On Apr 24, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for the tip!
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 4/24/2012 1:10 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>> there are actually use cases (and good motivations) for both op
I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for the tip!
-Adrian
On 4/24/2012 1:10 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
there are actually use cases (and good motivations) for both options and this
is why I proposed the most granular one. If you are building new *java* code
then you could run:
ant build run-te
there are actually use cases (and good motivations) for both options and this
is why I proposed the most granular one. If you are building new *java* code
then you could run:
ant build run-tests
Jacopo
On Apr 24, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
> The same argument could run in the opposit
The same argument could run in the opposite direction as well though, if I just
changed a script/simple-method why should I have to build again? Although to
be honest I don't really mind either way, running a build when nothing has
changed takes virtually no time at all.
Regards
Scott
On 24/0
-1
If you are running tests, then most likely you are developing new code.
So, if the tests fail, I should be able to make corrections to my source
code and then run the tests again without having to insert a build step.
-Adrian
On 4/23/2012 2:21 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
What do you thi
+1
Regards
Vikas
On Apr 23, 2012, at 6:51 PM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
> What do you think? In order to run most of the tests successfully you need to
> run load-data that already depends on "build"...
>
> Here is the code change I would like to commit:
>
> Index: build.xml
>
+1
On Apr 23, 2012 3:22 PM, "Jacopo Cappellato" <
jacopo.cappell...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote:
> What do you think? In order to run most of the tests successfully you need
> to run load-data that already depends on "build"...
>
> Here is the code change I would like to commit:
>
> Index: build.xml
>
+1
Sascha
Am 23.04.2012 um 17:56 schrieb "Jacques Le Roux" :
> +1
>
> Jacques
>
> From: "Pierre Smits"
>> +1
>> In my CI setup for automated OFBiz testing the system, after having checked
>> out the latest from trunk automatically, each individual test suite
>> triggered has to rebuild. Whic
+1
Jacques
From: "Pierre Smits"
+1
In my CI setup for automated OFBiz testing the system, after having checked
out the latest from trunk automatically, each individual test suite
triggered has to rebuild. Which only takes a minute or so. But for all
executed test runs together it adds up to a
+1
In my CI setup for automated OFBiz testing the system, after having checked
out the latest from trunk automatically, each individual test suite
triggered has to rebuild. Which only takes a minute or so. But for all
executed test runs together it adds up to about 15 mins.
So, each minute saved
What do you think? In order to run most of the tests successfully you need to
run load-data that already depends on "build"...
Here is the code change I would like to commit:
Index: build.xml
===
--- build.xml (revision 1328357)
+
13 matches
Mail list logo
