Re: Integrating Anthill with a Problem Report systyem?

And please don't forget our request:

An AUTOMATED FORCED option to build regardless whether there were changes to 
the repo or not.  I'm not talking about the MANUAL forced option currently 
implemented in AH-OS which requires human intervention.

Thanks.

----Original Message Follows----
From: Marcio Marchini <[email protected]>
Reply-To: Anthill user list <anthill-IWHQxnLZ/[email protected]>
To: Anthill user list <anthill-IWHQxnLZ/[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Anthill] Integrating Anthill with a Problem Report systyem?
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 07:44:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from lists.urbancode.com ([64.34.169.154]) by 
bay0-mc3-f1.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 26 
Mar 2006 04:44:50 -0800
Received: (qmail 29947 invoked by uid 510); 26 Mar 2006 12:46:17 -0000
Received: from anthill-bounces-IWHQxnLZ/[email protected] by caladin.urbancode.com 
by uid 504 with qmail-scanner-1.20  (spamassassin: 2.61.  
Clear:RC:1(127.0.0.1):.  Processed in 0.017979 secs); 26 Mar 2006 12:46:17 
-0000
Received: from localhost (HELO caladin.urbancode.com) (127.0.0.1)  by 
lists.urbancode.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 2006 12:46:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 29921 invoked by uid 510); 26 Mar 2006 12:46:14 -0000
Received: from [email protected] by caladin.urbancode.com by uid 504 
withqmail-scanner-1.20 (spamassassin: 2.61.  
Clear:RC:0(206.191.12.34):SA:0(0.2/5.0):. Processed in 2.491308 secs); 26 
Mar 2006 12:46:14 -0000
Received: from mail.bedarra.org (HELO bedarra.org) (206.191.12.34)by 
lists.urbancode.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 2006 12:46:11 -0000
Received: from [64.230.99.161] (account marcio HELO [192.168.3.13])by 
bedarra.org (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.6)with ESMTPSA id 6404534 for 
anthill-IWHQxnLZ/[email protected];Sun, 26 Mar 2006 07:44:43 -0500
X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jG65bp6Aa76kO4Yk1mY4qzPlp4VIz63r3g=
Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Delivered-To: mailman-anthill-IWHQxnLZ/[email protected]
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on 
caladin.urbancode.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_NJABL,RCVD_IN_SORBS 
autolearn=no version=2.61
X-BeenThere: anthill-IWHQxnLZ/[email protected]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: Anthill user list <anthill.lists.urbancode.com>
List-Unsubscribe: 
<http://lists.urbancode.com/mailman/listinfo/anthill>,<mailto:anthill-request-IWHQxnLZ/[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.urbancode.com/pipermail/anthill>
List-Post: <mailto:anthill-IWHQxnLZ/[email protected]>
List-Help: <mailto:anthill-request-IWHQxnLZ/[email protected]?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: 
<http://lists.urbancode.com/mailman/listinfo/anthill>,<mailto:anthill-request-IWHQxnLZ/[email protected]?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: anthill-bounces-IWHQxnLZ/[email protected]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2006 12:44:50.0814 (UTC) 
FILETIME=[12AAC1E0:01C650D3]

Eric Minick wrote:
>Marcio,
>
>Another approach to limiting the constant email problem would be to have an 
>option to only send out emails on the first failure. Anthill can continue 
>spinning it's wheels on the 30 minutes schedule trying to get a build out, 
>but not harass people about it. Would that make sense for you?


   Another option is to have Anthill detect if files changed since the last 
build attempt instead of the last successful build. This would also cut the 
useless number of emails etc in the case where a build breaks and stays 
broken for a while. No wheel spinning in vain. So, we have 3 options so far:

1) (your sugestion) Having a UI flag to tell Anthill to only email on the 
1st failed build. ANthill still spins its wheels in vain in th ecase of a 
broken build that takes a while to be fixed.

2) (my suggestion) Having a UI flag to make it switch to stoppedSchedule 
when a build fails. This forces manual intervention on a broken build, which 
is what we want in one scenario. A person will come and enter a PR in 
Bugzilla etc. When the PR is closed, the schedule is switched back.


3) (my suggestion) Having a UI flag (2 radio buttons) to tell Anthill to 
detect changes files since a) last successbuild; b) lat build attampt. 
Currently Anthill only supports b). This forces manual intervention on a 
broken build, which is what we want in one scenario. A person will come and 
enter a PR in Bugzilla etc. When a new file is commited (hopefully a fix) 
the build automatically kicks in.


   In fact I think that all 3 are needed to make Anthill flexible and fit 
more workflow scenarios.


marcio
_______________________________________________
Anthill mailing list
Anthill-IWHQxnLZ/[email protected]
http://lists.urbancode.com/mailman/listinfo/anthill

_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® 
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963