| Hudson Support [message #540179] |
Tue, 15 June 2010 05:38  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi,
I just got this issue on the Hudson Buckminster PlugIn to add support
for the b3 aggregator:
http://issues.hudson-ci.org/browse/HUDSON-6764
I think it's the wrong place, but what is your opinion about that
matter? Integrate that into the current Buckminster Plugin or create a
new Plugin for b3?
If you agree that there should be a dedicated b3 plugin, I'd be willing
to write one. But it would be good to know what features such a plugin
should provide, what should be different compared to the current
buckminster plugin and when there will be enough to b3 to actually start
the coding.
Regards,
Johannes
|
|
|
| Re: Hudson Support [message #540183 is a reply to message #540179] |
Tue, 15 June 2010 05:54  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Johannes,
I think that we should support b3 as a dedicated plugin in Hudson.
Current implementation of b3 provides an open command line interface that the hudson plugin should be based on. Right now the only thing that makes sense to run is the aggregator. However, the aggregator is just an extension implementing an abstract b3 command. There will be more commands in future and once the b3 command line interface is supported in Hudson, the newly added b3 commands will be available in Hudson too.
So, my vote is +1 for writing a dedicated b3 plugin for Hudson and I would appreciate your help.
What do others think?
Regards,
Filip
Johannes Utzig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just got this issue on the Hudson Buckminster PlugIn to add support
> for the b3 aggregator:
> http://issues.hudson-ci.org/browse/HUDSON-6764
>
> I think it's the wrong place, but what is your opinion about that
> matter? Integrate that into the current Buckminster Plugin or create a
> new Plugin for b3?
>
> If you agree that there should be a dedicated b3 plugin, I'd be willing
> to write one. But it would be good to know what features such a plugin
> should provide, what should be different compared to the current
> buckminster plugin and when there will be enough to b3 to actually start
> the coding.
>
>
> Regards,
> Johannes
|
|
|
| Re: Hudson Support [message #608553 is a reply to message #540179] |
Tue, 15 June 2010 05:54 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Hi Johannes,
I think that we should support b3 as a dedicated plugin in Hudson.
Current implementation of b3 provides an open command line interface that the hudson plugin should be based on. Right now the only thing that makes sense to run is the aggregator. However, the aggregator is just an extension implementing an abstract b3 command. There will be more commands in future and once the b3 command line interface is supported in Hudson, the newly added b3 commands will be available in Hudson too.
So, my vote is +1 for writing a dedicated b3 plugin for Hudson and I would appreciate your help.
What do others think?
Regards,
Filip
Johannes Utzig wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just got this issue on the Hudson Buckminster PlugIn to add support
> for the b3 aggregator:
> http://issues.hudson-ci.org/browse/HUDSON-6764
>
> I think it's the wrong place, but what is your opinion about that
> matter? Integrate that into the current Buckminster Plugin or create a
> new Plugin for b3?
>
> If you agree that there should be a dedicated b3 plugin, I'd be willing
> to write one. But it would be good to know what features such a plugin
> should provide, what should be different compared to the current
> buckminster plugin and when there will be enough to b3 to actually start
> the coding.
>
>
> Regards,
> Johannes
|
|
|
| Re: Hudson Support [message #632486 is a reply to message #540183] |
Wed, 13 October 2010 03:04 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
On 06/15/2010 11:54 AM, Filip Hrbek wrote:
> Hi Johannes,
>
> I think that we should support b3 as a dedicated plugin in Hudson.
>
> Current implementation of b3 provides an open command line interface
> that the hudson plugin should be based on. Right now the only thing that
> makes sense to run is the aggregator. However, the aggregator is just an
> extension implementing an abstract b3 command. There will be more
> commands in future and once the b3 command line interface is supported
> in Hudson, the newly added b3 commands will be available in Hudson too.
>
> So, my vote is +1 for writing a dedicated b3 plugin for Hudson and I
> would appreciate your help.
>
> What do others think?
>
> Regards,
>
> Filip
>
>
> Johannes Utzig wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just got this issue on the Hudson Buckminster PlugIn to add support
>> for the b3 aggregator:
>> http://issues.hudson-ci.org/browse/HUDSON-6764
>>
>> I think it's the wrong place, but what is your opinion about that
>> matter? Integrate that into the current Buckminster Plugin or create a
>> new Plugin for b3?
>>
>> If you agree that there should be a dedicated b3 plugin, I'd be willing
>> to write one. But it would be good to know what features such a plugin
>> should provide, what should be different compared to the current
>> buckminster plugin and when there will be enough to b3 to actually start
>> the coding.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Johannes
>
Has anybody started working on a b3 Hudson integration yet?
Markus
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 2.84998 seconds
Home