Re: Please stop committing on a broken build! ([Testbot] Plone 5.0 - Python 2.7 - Build # 1925 - Regression! - 6 failure(s))

Gil Forcada <[email protected]> Sat, 22 Mar 2014 20:19:00 +0100
Newsgroups	gmane.comp.web.zope.plone.devel
Message-ID	<1395515940.26555.8.camel@patam>
El dv 21 de 03 de 2014 a les 09:27 +0100, en/na Timo Stollenwerk va
escriure:
> Am 21.03.2014 08:38, schrieb Laurence Rowe:
> >     We can't just merge features and then keep the build broken for weeks.
> >     People are committing anyways, breaking more stuff without notice and in
> >     the end someone has to clean up that mess. The longer we keep the build
> >     broken the harder it gets...
> > 
> >     I try to keep track and remind people if they break things, but that
> >     only works well if the build is green in the first place.
> > 
> > 
> > Would it be possible to get tests running on feature branches as well as
> > master / version branches? It seems unavoidable that occasionally
> > checkins will break the build, but if those checkins are always made to
> > a feature branch and merging of the feature to master happens only after
> > looking at the build status then master should stay green. (Ideally one
> > first merges from master to the feature branch to ensure the merge back
> > is clean.)
> > 
> > I realise the above is very tricky for a system as complex as Plone, but
> > I've found it to be a great help in my (much smaller) current project.
> 
> This is what I would love to have. Though, as you said, this is not
> trivial to implement.
> 
> Cheers,
> Timo

Hi all,

My 0,5 cents (and 100+ words) about it:

What we have at the company I work works quite well for us (a simplified
version of [1] actually and modified to fit in Plone below):
- master branch should never fail and is only used to merge already
proved changes (i.e. you usually never push commits there)
- a develop branch is used to do you day to day commits (or feature
branches if your changes are big enough)
- once your feature branch is complete and all tests passes you should
be able to update the branch in buildout.coredev (develop branch)
- if that still works you can rebase buildout.coredev master branch into
develop branch (so make both branches point to the same commit)

Regarding PLIPs, we already have jenkins jobs for that, isn't it? Maybe
we should extend the PLIP definition to also say that a jenkins job
needs to be created for it.

And to top it all, it would be cool if we have a branch in
buildout.coredev called "tests-passed" this is updated only by jenkins
once a buildout.coredev specific build is green. Then all PLIPs jenkins
jobs could be instrumented to checkout buildout.coredev on that specific
branch and then run the tests for the given PLIP they are supposed to
run tests for.

This way PLIPs will always run from a "green" buildout and thus if they
fail it will be most likely integration problems due to the PLIP changes
not unrelated ones.

Cheers,
Gil Forcada

[1] http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
"Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their
applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field,
this first edition is now available. Download your free book today!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/13534_NeoTech

_______________________________________________
Plone-developers mailing list
Plone-developers-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plone-developers
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 819 B)