-----------
> > Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:49:51 -0500
> > Subject: Re: Build & CI Considerations
> > From: mhern...@o19s.com
> > To: lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
> >
> > Something to think about for future use is accessibility of the build
ikely something they had to do for us, but I don't see why it would
be an issue for them to do it for us
~Prescott
> Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:49:51 -0500
> Subject: Re: Build & CI Considerations
> From: mhern...@o19s.com
>
Something to think about for future use is accessibility of the build server
for those maintaining.
How we do go about sharing that information, obviously you don't want to
hand out access to the ci server to a public mailing list.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Wyatt Barnett wrote:
> Why
Why do I forget to check against the obvious? Anyhow, I guess we can
run with what we have, though that build is not doing much. Any idea
how we get administrative access over there? Might as well try and get
it to do stuff like run the tests as well.
I think long-term, we'll need something a bit
On 2011-01-26, Wyatt Barnett wrote:
> 2) CI : oh hells yeah. My vision would be to setup something where the
> automated conversion would be triggered by commits to the "stable"
> branch of the java project. I think if we can construct this bit right
> we can even really get down the road of autom
Robert,
> .
>
I don't believe this is necessary. At least there were no requests
for alternative build systems in the past.
There may never be a need for the alternative building scripts, its was more
of a curious question. I've seen a few projects on github use both albacore
and psake. Maybe it
