Re: rsync instead of archiving?

2013-08-29 Thread JonathanRRogers
On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 5:10:38 PM UTC-4, Avihay Eyal wrote: Hi, I have a job that builds a debug version, and a job that runs regression tests and publish code coverage. The code coverage (gcovr) needs *access to the code base* itself, which is close to *3 GB.* I've tried *archiving*

Re: rsync instead of archiving?

2013-08-29 Thread Avihay Eyal
Cause I have a machine that's used for build purpose, and a machine that's used for regression/unittest. So the output files that trace the code coverage, are actually produced on machine that run the regression/unittest, but these coverage files (.gcda files) and must be joined with the

Re: rsync instead of archiving?

2013-08-29 Thread Jonathan Rogers
Avihay Eyal wrote: Cause I have a machine that's used for build purpose, and a machine that's used for regression/unittest. So the output files that trace the code coverage, are actually produced on machine that run the regression/unittest, but these coverage files (.gcda files) and must be

Re: rsync instead of archiving?

2013-08-29 Thread Daniel Beck
You could trigger the test/coverage build using Parameterized Trigger plugin, specifying the node name and workspace path the compilation ran on (i.e. the rsync source host and folder) as parameters. If you're using host names for node names, you're done, otherwise, you need to do a little

rsync instead of archiving?

2013-08-28 Thread Avihay Eyal
Hi, I have a job that builds a debug version, and a job that runs regression tests and publish code coverage. The code coverage (gcovr) needs *access to the code base* itself, which is close to *3 GB.* I've tried *archiving* the workspace in the build job, and using that archive in the