On 25/04/17 09:41, Mathias Fleury wrote:
>
>> What is good about it?
> (I don't remember enough of the previous system to compare it to Jenkins.)
Lets go back to some points on this thread, now that I have finished
more implementation work.
> * automatic testing (I have forgotten to add file
On 24/04/17 14:46, Makarius wrote:
> This is another attempt to open a discussion about Jenkins at TUM.
Thanks to everyone who participated on this thread. I have learned a few
new things, which I will pick up again soon.
Makarius
___
isabelle
Hi Makarius,
I think everyone involved with this issue is interested in coming back to a
situation where we have a solution that works for everyone.
Can we try to find a proposal for a change of the current infrastructure
that accommodates for yours and others' missing requirements?
On Mon, Apr 2
> * My main use of Mira was to figure out which Isabelle version
> corresponds to which AFP version, when something was broken in AFP.
>
> * I did not find this information in Jenkins, when I was still
> spending more time on it last year.
This information is all there. Build status is access
Hi Makarius,
> On 24 Apr 2017, at 18:12, Makarius wrote:
>
> On 24/04/17 14:46, Makarius wrote:
>>
>> Are there users of it outside the TUM group?
My usage is the same as in Jasmin’s and Andreas’ case.
>>
>> What is good about it? What is bad about it?
>
> (1) To follow the line of Mira vs.
Hello all,
First, I would like to thank Lars for the time he is spending on Jenkins.
On 24.04.17 17:47, Blanchette, J.C. wrote:
>> On 24 Apr 2017, at 17:12, Andreas Lochbihler
>> wrote:
>>
>> Sure. Whenever I have to push something to the Isabelle repository, I use
>> the Jenkins testboard i
On 24/04/17 18:10, Lars Hupel wrote:
>> In parallel (before and after Mira) we've had the older isatest. I don't
>> know if Mira ever had the ambition to replace isatest, but Jenkins tried
>> to do all that and failed. This was the start of my great worries about
>> the Isabelle administration and
On 24/04/17 14:46, Makarius wrote:
>
> Are there users of it outside the TUM group?
>
> What is good about it? What is bad about it?
(1) To follow the line of Mira vs. Jenkins:
* My main use of Mira was to figure out which Isabelle version
corresponds to which AFP version, when something was
> In parallel (before and after Mira) we've had the older isatest. I don't
> know if Mira ever had the ambition to replace isatest, but Jenkins tried
> to do all that and failed. This was the start of my great worries about
> the Isabelle administration and release infrastructure ...
So, you're ju
> On 24 Apr 2017, at 17:12, Andreas Lochbihler
> wrote:
>
> Sure. Whenever I have to push something to the Isabelle repository, I use the
> Jenkins testboard installation to see whether something broke. It works more
> reliably than the previous testboard infrastructure, which often ignored s
On 24/04/17 17:12, Andreas Lochbihler wrote:
> Sure. Whenever I have to push something to the Isabelle repository, I
> use the Jenkins testboard installation to see whether something broke.
> It works more reliably than the previous testboard infrastructure, which
> often ignored some commits.
Tha
Sure. Whenever I have to push something to the Isabelle repository, I use the Jenkins
testboard installation to see whether something broke. It works more reliably than the
previous testboard infrastructure, which often ignored some commits.
Andreas
On 24/04/17 14:46, Makarius wrote:
This is
This is another attempt to open a discussion about Jenkins at TUM.
Are there users of it outside the TUM group?
What is good about it? What is bad about it?
Makarius
___
isabelle-dev mailing list
isabelle-...@in.tum.de
https://mailmanbroy.info
13 matches
Mail list logo