Re: [discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.

2013-01-03 Thread Andrew Rist
On 1/2/2013 2:25 AM, janI wrote: Andrea: thx for your observations. With the very low activity we have on trunk, there might be no reason for statistics. I am simply just used to a more comfortable and flexible build system. If I want to check my l10n changes on different platforms I have to (

Re: [discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.

2013-01-02 Thread janI
Andrea: thx for your observations. With the very low activity we have on trunk, there might be no reason for statistics. I am simply just used to a more comfortable and flexible build system. If I want to check my l10n changes on different platforms I have to (or so I have been told) merge it to

Re: [discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.

2013-01-02 Thread Herbert Duerr
On 01.01.2013 23:07, Andrea Pescetti wrote: janI wrote: I might be wrong but do we e.g. - get automatic mail when a build fails ? - have a statistic over our build through time ? Notifications are sent to openoffice-commits, see for example http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-

Re: [discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.

2013-01-01 Thread Andrea Pescetti
janI wrote: I might be wrong but do we e.g. - get automatic mail when a build fails ? - have a statistic over our build through time ? Notifications are sent to openoffice-commits, see for example http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/openoffice-commits/201301.mbox/%3c20130101075333.41945c0

Re: [discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.

2013-01-01 Thread janI
I did know that we use the machines for building: http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/ But it seemed to me we could integrate deeper using e.g. continum and sonar, to get better monitoring and reporting. I might be wrong but do we e.g. - get automatic mail when a build fails ? - have a stati

Re: [discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.

2012-12-31 Thread Dave Fisher
Jan, On Dec 31, 2012, at 12:11 PM, jan iversen wrote: > excuse me I did NOT say that anybody did a bad job! on the contrary I > think a lot of people do a real big job I simply try to make the job > easier. but I do understand when a polite question is unwanted. How did my answer to And

Re: [discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.

2012-12-31 Thread jan iversen
excuse me I did NOT say that anybody did a bad job! on the contrary I think a lot of people do a real big job I simply try to make the job easier. but I do understand when a polite question is unwanted. sorry for suggestion a possible improvement that will not happen again. Jan i Den 31/

Re: [discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.

2012-12-31 Thread Dave Fisher
Hi Andrew, On Dec 31, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Andrew Rist wrote: > > On 12/31/2012 2:09 AM, janI wrote: >> Is there a reason why we use our own buildbot and not one of the infra >> supported ones, like e.g. Continuum. > We /are/ using the ASF buildbot infrastructure. So I'm kind of confused by > the

Re: [discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.

2012-12-31 Thread Andrew Rist
On 12/31/2012 2:09 AM, janI wrote: Is there a reason why we use our own buildbot and not one of the infra supported ones, like e.g. Continuum. We /are/ using the ASF buildbot infrastructure. So I'm kind of confused by the question. check http://ci.apache.org/projects/openoffice/ Also, the dec

[discussion] Buildbot standard a.o or our own.

2012-12-31 Thread janI
Is there a reason why we use our own buildbot and not one of the infra supported ones, like e.g. Continuum. Sharing servers with other and having other people maintain the build routines should be to our advantage. Or do I see life in the wrong light ? rgds Jan I