Re: Pre-review CI
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 9:50 PM, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote: > Am Montag, 30. Juli 2018, 06:50:47 CEST schrieb Bhushan Shah: >> On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 05:00:19PM +0200, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote: >> > 1 job means one huge build log to look at, or? In that case I would prefer >> > separate jobs. Given review requests are prone to fail. >> >> Thing is, you don't care about the pre-review CI jobs as long as they >> are passing, but in case of fail, yes you might have to look at long >> log depending on where failure was, in first platform or last one. > > So this is a use-case which should be optimized for, given it is an expected > to hit hot-path of developer workflow :) > >> > compare to non-review build jobs, I would assume. And having jobs separate >> > also means one gets results for any platforms, does not stop on the first >> > failing? >> >> Yes, but it also means that if there is obvious mistake in review, all >> will fail, insteaad of bailing out earlier. > > More advantages with parallel builds: > * bigger projects, where building takes some time (krita, kdevelop, plasma-*, > etc) and where sometimes patches are reviewed almost in sync, parallel builds > mean quicker feedback > * when doing fix-up for patches which fail on a platform, getting quicker > feedback would be also good > * parallel builds might also mean easier report for results on the different > platforms in the jenkins page, so one can quickly see on which platform there > are issues (and which experts might be needed) > * a platform being broken on normal CI for some unrelated reason (outdated > deps, platform issues) will also mean the review build breaks there, in that > case any later platforms in the single job build would not be reached for > review feedback > * platform-specific issues (like missing includes) which need platform experts > will result in a fail before reaching other issues (like regressions in > tests), having parallel builds would allow the non-build failing platforms to > also run the tests and allow the developer to already investigate the test > regression, while waiting for the platform experts to help out with the > platform specific issues > > So unless we are short of resources on CI, I really would favour separate > builds, to always get feedback for all platforms, instead of doing some try & > error walk through all platforms one by one, with the others having to wait > for the earlier (and respective people to sort out things there). At the moment we can do a maximum of 3 Windows builds and 3 FreeBSD builds at any given time. Depending on how things go, especially at peak time, we may need to look into additional resources for the system. > > Let's make sure things can be worked in parallel where possible, and as quick > as possible, given most FLOSS contributors only have small time snippets to do > things. That seems reasonable enough, however executing them in parallel will mean that the system will be quite chatty in the case of failures, as each platform will be represented by a different build plan on the Phabricator side (ie. you won't get one comment saying it failed, you'll get N comments, where N is the number of platforms that repository is enabled for) > >> > > - Should we send out comment for failure and success? Or is it easier to >> > > >> > > figure out the console log link without the comment? See linked review >> > > for example [1]. >> > >> > [1] -> [2] here. >> > >> > What do you mean exactly by "send out comment for failure and success"? >> > More emails? (Please not). That example works fine with me, but not sure >> > what the alternative is? >> >> The alternative being, instead of jenkins-ci comemnting with link, you >> find it manually in Diff detail section, see screenshot >> >> https://screenshots.firefox.com/1GG7B0bPLod3QMFg/phabricator.kde.org >> >> Here, the "Jenkins" after the "Build 1313: Frameworks Pre-Review CI" is >> link to jenkins build. But the test was if you were able to spot it in >> first glance, and it failed. :P so yeah we will keep comments enabled >> even if it means extra emails. > > Eh, not talking about that does not mean I would have not seen it ;) > Cannot remember if I did, but such a central last build status display would > be good to have in general, so there is one defined place to look at the learn > about the latest build report for the current state, and not having to search > for in the timeline. So that entry being there or some other defined place > could be taken for granted :) > &g
Re: Pre-review CI
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 11:50:48AM +0200, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote: > More advantages with parallel builds: > * bigger projects, where building takes some time (krita, kdevelop, plasma-*, > etc) and where sometimes patches are reviewed almost in sync, parallel builds > mean quicker feedback > * when doing fix-up for patches which fail on a platform, getting quicker > feedback would be also good > * parallel builds might also mean easier report for results on the different > platforms in the jenkins page, so one can quickly see on which platform there > are issues (and which experts might be needed) > * a platform being broken on normal CI for some unrelated reason (outdated > deps, platform issues) will also mean the review build breaks there, in that > case any later platforms in the single job build would not be reached for > review feedback > * platform-specific issues (like missing includes) which need platform > experts > will result in a fail before reaching other issues (like regressions in > tests), having parallel builds would allow the non-build failing platforms to > also run the tests and allow the developer to already investigate the test > regression, while waiting for the platform experts to help out with the > platform specific issues > > So unless we are short of resources on CI, I really would favour separate > builds, to always get feedback for all platforms, instead of doing some try & > error walk through all platforms one by one, with the others having to wait > for the earlier (and respective people to sort out things there). > > Let's make sure things can be worked in parallel where possible, and as quick > as possible, given most FLOSS contributors only have small time snippets to > do > things. Your arguments makes sense perfectly. > Which brings another question: how long would review build logs be kept? > > I could imagine that discarding once a review is closed (discarded or > committed) would be fine. But while a review request is open, keeping also > build logs for older revisions (at least to a certain count) of a patch under > review would be good to have, as sometimes one needs to compare results for > different versions. Builds will stay on CI as long as the review request is open, also we are thinking of the "cleanup" at regular period to purge the review request builds which had no updates in "some period". Thanks -- Bhushan Shah http://blog.bshah.in IRC Nick : bshah on Freenode GPG key fingerprint : 0AAC 775B B643 7A8D 9AF7 A3AC FE07 8411 7FBC E11D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Pre-review CI
Am Montag, 30. Juli 2018, 06:50:47 CEST schrieb Bhushan Shah: > On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 05:00:19PM +0200, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote: > > 1 job means one huge build log to look at, or? In that case I would prefer > > separate jobs. Given review requests are prone to fail. > > Thing is, you don't care about the pre-review CI jobs as long as they > are passing, but in case of fail, yes you might have to look at long > log depending on where failure was, in first platform or last one. So this is a use-case which should be optimized for, given it is an expected to hit hot-path of developer workflow :) > > compare to non-review build jobs, I would assume. And having jobs separate > > also means one gets results for any platforms, does not stop on the first > > failing? > > Yes, but it also means that if there is obvious mistake in review, all > will fail, insteaad of bailing out earlier. More advantages with parallel builds: * bigger projects, where building takes some time (krita, kdevelop, plasma-*, etc) and where sometimes patches are reviewed almost in sync, parallel builds mean quicker feedback * when doing fix-up for patches which fail on a platform, getting quicker feedback would be also good * parallel builds might also mean easier report for results on the different platforms in the jenkins page, so one can quickly see on which platform there are issues (and which experts might be needed) * a platform being broken on normal CI for some unrelated reason (outdated deps, platform issues) will also mean the review build breaks there, in that case any later platforms in the single job build would not be reached for review feedback * platform-specific issues (like missing includes) which need platform experts will result in a fail before reaching other issues (like regressions in tests), having parallel builds would allow the non-build failing platforms to also run the tests and allow the developer to already investigate the test regression, while waiting for the platform experts to help out with the platform specific issues So unless we are short of resources on CI, I really would favour separate builds, to always get feedback for all platforms, instead of doing some try & error walk through all platforms one by one, with the others having to wait for the earlier (and respective people to sort out things there). Let's make sure things can be worked in parallel where possible, and as quick as possible, given most FLOSS contributors only have small time snippets to do things. > > > - Should we send out comment for failure and success? Or is it easier to > > > > > > figure out the console log link without the comment? See linked review > > > for example [1]. > > > > [1] -> [2] here. > > > > What do you mean exactly by "send out comment for failure and success"? > > More emails? (Please not). That example works fine with me, but not sure > > what the alternative is? > > The alternative being, instead of jenkins-ci comemnting with link, you > find it manually in Diff detail section, see screenshot > > https://screenshots.firefox.com/1GG7B0bPLod3QMFg/phabricator.kde.org > > Here, the "Jenkins" after the "Build 1313: Frameworks Pre-Review CI" is > link to jenkins build. But the test was if you were able to spot it in > first glance, and it failed. :P so yeah we will keep comments enabled > even if it means extra emails. Eh, not talking about that does not mean I would have not seen it ;) Cannot remember if I did, but such a central last build status display would be good to have in general, so there is one defined place to look at the learn about the latest build report for the current state, and not having to search for in the timeline. So that entry being there or some other defined place could be taken for granted :) Having the different build reports also in the timeline (by a comment or whatever other entry type phabricator allows) might be nice to have, it might help to compare results when trying to fix a build failure only hit/available on CI. Which brings another question: how long would review build logs be kept? I could imagine that discarding once a review is closed (discarded or committed) would be fine. But while a review request is open, keeping also build logs for older revisions (at least to a certain count) of a patch under review would be good to have, as sometimes one needs to compare results for different versions. Cheers Friedrich
Re: Pre-review CI
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 05:00:19PM +0200, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote: > 1 job means one huge build log to look at, or? In that case I would prefer > separate jobs. Given review requests are prone to fail. Thing is, you don't care about the pre-review CI jobs as long as they are passing, but in case of fail, yes you might have to look at long log depending on where failure was, in first platform or last one. > compare to non-review build jobs, I would assume. And having jobs separate > also means one gets results for any platforms, does not stop on the first > failing? Yes, but it also means that if there is obvious mistake in review, all will fail, insteaad of bailing out earlier. > All that said though without having seen how a one-job-to-rule-them-all would > look like, and how the others. Any chance for some samples, please? We haven't enabled multi-platform jobs currently but it would be basically for each platform (linux, windows, FreeBSD, Android). It will execute them in order, and if one fails, it will just bail out. > > - Should we send out comment for failure and success? Or is it easier to > > figure out the console log link without the comment? See linked review > > for example [1]. > > [1] -> [2] here. > > What do you mean exactly by "send out comment for failure and success"? More > emails? (Please not). That example works fine with me, but not sure what the > alternative is? The alternative being, instead of jenkins-ci comemnting with link, you find it manually in Diff detail section, see screenshot https://screenshots.firefox.com/1GG7B0bPLod3QMFg/phabricator.kde.org Here, the "Jenkins" after the "Build 1313: Frameworks Pre-Review CI" is link to jenkins build. But the test was if you were able to spot it in first glance, and it failed. :P so yeah we will keep comments enabled even if it means extra emails. > Cheers and Thanks again for improving the review system > Friedrich Thanks -- Bhushan Shah http://blog.bshah.in IRC Nick : bshah on Freenode GPG key fingerprint : 0AAC 775B B643 7A8D 9AF7 A3AC FE07 8411 7FBC E11D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Pre-review CI
Am Sonntag, 29. Juli 2018, 13:15:10 CEST schrieb Bhushan Shah: > Hello, > > So in previous email about staging repository I talked about pre-review > CI [1]. After some time, we finally have some code in ci-tooling which can > handle the pre-review CI for KDE repositories. And for initial pilot run > we want to enable it for frameworks repositories. Thanks for working on this, great to see this coming. > We have several questions about this though, > > - Should we have seperate CI jobs per platform (Linux, Windows, FreeBSD, > Android) for review? or just 1 job which runs the builds across all > platforms? 1 job means one huge build log to look at, or? In that case I would prefer separate jobs. Given review requests are prone to fail. Other advantages of separate jobs: separate build job also are easier to compare to non-review build jobs, I would assume. And having jobs separate also means one gets results for any platforms, does not stop on the first failing? And one can see by the job overview already on which platform there was an issue. All that said though without having seen how a one-job-to-rule-them-all would look like, and how the others. Any chance for some samples, please? > - Should we send out comment for failure and success? Or is it easier to > figure out the console log link without the comment? See linked review > for example [1]. [1] -> [2] here. What do you mean exactly by "send out comment for failure and success"? More emails? (Please not). That example works fine with me, but not sure what the alternative is? Cheers and Thanks again for improving the review system Friedrich
Pre-review CI
Hello, So in previous email about staging repository I talked about pre-review CI [1]. After some time, we finally have some code in ci-tooling which can handle the pre-review CI for KDE repositories. And for initial pilot run we want to enable it for frameworks repositories. We have several questions about this though, - Should we have seperate CI jobs per platform (Linux, Windows, FreeBSD, Android) for review? or just 1 job which runs the builds across all platforms? - Should we send out comment for failure and success? Or is it easier to figure out the console log link without the comment? See linked review for example [1]. Looking forward to feedback. Thanks! [1] https://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/2018-June/065616.html [2] https://phabricator.kde.org/D14438 -- Bhushan Shah http://blog.bshah.in IRC Nick : bshah on Freenode GPG key fingerprint : 0AAC 775B B643 7A8D 9AF7 A3AC FE07 8411 7FBC E11D signature.asc Description: PGP signature
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
bshah removed a project: Frameworks. bshah removed a subscriber: kde-frameworks-devel. Restricted Application added a project: Frameworks. REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, michaelh, ngraham, bruns, kde-frameworks-devel
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
Harbormaster failed remote builds in B1283: Diff 38634! REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
jenkins-ci added a comment. Build is unstable Link to build: https://build.kde.org/job/Reviews/job/13819/3/ See console output for more information: https://build.kde.org/job/Reviews/job/13819/3/console REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
bshah updated this revision to Diff 38634. bshah added a comment. - Revert "make it fail" - break test REPOSITORY R243 KArchive CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819?vs=38632&id=38634 BRANCH bshah REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 AFFECTED FILES CMakeLists.txt autotests/karchivetest.cpp To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
Harbormaster failed remote builds in B1282: Diff 38632! REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
jenkins-ci added a comment. Build has FAILED Link to build: https://build.kde.org/job/Reviews/job/13819/2/ See console output for more information: https://build.kde.org/job/Reviews/job/13819/2/console REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
bshah updated this revision to Diff 38632. bshah added a comment. - make it fail REPOSITORY R243 KArchive CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819?vs=38631&id=38632 BRANCH bshah REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 AFFECTED FILES CMakeLists.txt To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
jenkins-ci added a comment. Build is green https://build.kde.org/job/Reviews/job/13819/1/ for more details. REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
bshah updated this revision to Diff 38631. bshah added a comment. - change REPOSITORY R243 KArchive CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819?vs=38500&id=38631 BRANCH bshah REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 AFFECTED FILES CMakeLists.txt To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
jenkins-ci added a comment. Build is green https://build.kde.org/job/Reviews/job/38500/4/ for more details. REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
Harbormaster failed remote builds in B1215: Diff 38500! REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
bshah updated this revision to Diff 38500. bshah added a comment. - change REPOSITORY R243 KArchive CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819?vs=37574&id=38500 BRANCH bshah REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 AFFECTED FILES CMakeLists.txt To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
jenkins-ci added a comment. Build is green https://build.kde.org/job/test/20/ for more details. REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
bshah updated this revision to Diff 37574. bshah added a comment. - jhdkjfhdskj REPOSITORY R243 KArchive CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819?vs=37004&id=37574 BRANCH bshah REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 AFFECTED FILES CMakeLists.txt To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
jenkins-ci added a comment. Build is green https://build.kde.org/job/test/19/ for more details. REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
bshah updated this revision to Diff 37004. bshah added a comment. - fix tests REPOSITORY R243 KArchive CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819?vs=36992&id=37004 BRANCH bshah REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 AFFECTED FILES CMakeLists.txt To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
jenkins-ci added a comment. Build is unstable Link to build: https://build.kde.org/job/test/18/ See console output for more information: https://build.kde.org/job/test/18/console REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
Harbormaster failed remote builds in B521: Diff 36992! REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
bshah updated this revision to Diff 36992. bshah added a comment. - less fun, but this time try failing unit test REPOSITORY R243 KArchive CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819?vs=36991&id=36992 BRANCH bshah REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 AFFECTED FILES CMakeLists.txt autotests/karchivetest.cpp To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
Harbormaster failed remote builds in B520: Diff 36991! REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
jenkins-ci added a comment. Build has FAILED Link to build: https://build.kde.org/job/test/17/ See console output for more information: https://build.kde.org/job/test/17/console REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
bshah updated this revision to Diff 36991. bshah added a comment. - find qt5 fun, because that will make build fail REPOSITORY R243 KArchive CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819?vs=36989&id=36991 BRANCH bshah REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 AFFECTED FILES CMakeLists.txt To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
jenkins-ci added a comment. Build is green https://build.kde.org/job/test/16/ for more details. REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
bshah updated this revision to Diff 36989. bshah added a comment. - final change handover chnage REPOSITORY R243 KArchive CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819?vs=36988&id=36989 BRANCH bshah REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 AFFECTED FILES CMakeLists.txt To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
jenkins-ci added a comment. Build is green https://build.kde.org/job/test/15/ for more details. REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
Harbormaster failed remote builds in B517: Diff 36988! REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
jenkins-ci added a comment. Build has FAILED Link to build: https://build.kde.org/job/test/14/ See console output for more information: https://build.kde.org/job/test/14/console REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
bshah updated this revision to Diff 36988. bshah added a comment. - enough derps REPOSITORY R243 KArchive CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819?vs=36987&id=36988 BRANCH bshah REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 AFFECTED FILES CMakeLists.txt To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
jenkins-ci added a comment. Build has FAILED Link to build: https://build.kde.org/job/test/13/ See console output for more information: https://build.kde.org/job/test/13/console REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
Harbormaster failed remote builds in B516: Diff 36987! REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
bshah updated this revision to Diff 36987. bshah added a comment. - derp REPOSITORY R243 KArchive CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819?vs=36986&id=36987 BRANCH bshah REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 AFFECTED FILES CMakeLists.txt To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
Harbormaster failed remote builds in B515: Diff 36986! REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
jenkins-ci added a comment. Build has FAILED Link to build: https://build.kde.org/job/test/12/ See console output for more information: https://build.kde.org/job/test/12/console REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
bshah updated this revision to Diff 36986. bshah added a comment. - derp REPOSITORY R243 KArchive CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819?vs=36985&id=36986 BRANCH bshah REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 AFFECTED FILES CMakeLists.txt To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
Harbormaster failed remote builds in B514: Diff 36985! REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
jenkins-ci added a comment. Build has FAILED Link to build: https://build.kde.org/job/test/11/ See console output for more information: https://build.kde.org/job/test/11/console REPOSITORY R243 KArchive REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
bshah updated this revision to Diff 36985. bshah added a comment. - edit 4, to check change handover works REPOSITORY R243 KArchive CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819?vs=36982&id=36985 BRANCH bshah REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 AFFECTED FILES CMakeLists.txt To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
D13819: dummy commit to test pre-review CI
bshah created this revision. Restricted Application added a project: Frameworks. Restricted Application added a subscriber: kde-frameworks-devel. Harbormaster failed remote builds in B508: Diff 36977! Harbormaster returned this revision to the author for changes because remote builds failed. bshah updated this revision to Diff 36979. bshah added a comment. Harbormaster failed remote builds in B509: Diff 36979! Harbormaster returned this revision to the author for changes because remote builds failed. bshah updated this revision to Diff 36980. Harbormaster failed remote builds in B510: Diff 36980! Harbormaster returned this revision to the author for changes because remote builds failed. bshah updated this revision to Diff 36982. Harbormaster failed remote builds in B511: Diff 36982! Harbormaster returned this revision to the author for changes because remote builds failed. bshah requested review of this revision. - edit 1 to re-trigger failed CI bshah added a comment. - 2nd time is charm bshah added a comment. - edit 3, let's try this jenkins-ci added a comment. Build is green https://build.kde.org/job/test/10/ for more details. REVISION SUMMARY please ignore this, it is part of work to test the upcoming pre-review CI REPOSITORY R243 KArchive BRANCH bshah REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D13819 AFFECTED FILES CMakeLists.txt To: bshah Cc: jenkins-ci, kde-frameworks-devel, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
