Re: [egit-dev] 2.4 project plan

[Tomasz Zarna <tzarna@xxxxxxxxx>]

> Excluding all patchs that get a -1 from hudson without even telling us that you will not look at them will end up with cases such as André's :
> he was waiting for feedback ... on something you would not look.

Guys, don't get me wrong. I'm doing this for fun, nobody's paying me
for working on EGit. It's all after-hours/weekend coding in my case. I
have a life too.

Also, I said it's just me. I'm pretty sure that other committers are
better at watching review inbox than me.

> For the cases I've seen, we would need to re-push the very same change (is that even possible?) to "force" hudson to trigger a new build and vote... and if the test fails again, go back to step 1 and push again.

If you're not able to retrigger a Hudson job you can try rebasing the
patch. If none of these work, you can always leave a comment on the
change.

Cheers,
Tomek

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Laurent Goubet <laurent.goubet@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sorry to butt in but ... some of the "-1" I've seen from hudson were results
> of seemingly random test failures, with one recent example was patch set 2
> of https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/10654/
>
> which received a -1 because of an SWTBot test failing because of an
> IOException
> (https://hudson.eclipse.org/sandbox/job/egit.gerrit/4233/testReport/junit/org.eclipse.egit.core/GitMoveDeleteHookTest/testMoveProjectWithinGitRepoMoveFromTopOneLevelDown/)
>
> Excluding all patchs that get a -1 from hudson without even telling us that
> you will not look at them will end up with cases such as André's : he was
> waiting for feedback ... on something you would not look. For the cases I've
> seen, we would need to re-push the very same change (is that even possible?)
> to "force" hudson to trigger a new build and vote... and if the test fails
> again, go back to step 1 and push again.
>
> Laurent Goubet
> Obeo
>
>
> On 18/03/2013 13:10, Tomasz Zarna wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, missed the link to JGit change.
>>
>> As for the failure, the truth is that it's unlikely someone will look
>> at the patch that got -1 from Hudson. I have even excluded such
>> changes from my queries. Anyway, have you tried running those tests
>> locally (with and without your patch)?
>>
>> Tomek
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:55 PM, André Dietisheim <adietish@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Tomasz
>>>
>>> thanks for looking into it!
>>> comments below.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/18/2013 12:38 PM, Tomasz Zarna wrote:
>>>
>>> Does the EGit change depend on the JGit one?
>>>
>>>
>>> it does, added the following to my commit-msg:
>>>
>>> Note: depends on jgit change I670782784b38702d52bca98203909aca0496d1c0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you know, why Hudson
>>> doesn't like the latter?
>>>
>>>
>>> As I tried to sum up in
>>> http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/egit-dev/msg03047.html I'm not
>>> completely aware of why SmartClientSmartServerTest would fail, but I'm
>>> pretty sure it's not because of my patch. I wasn't completely sure of the
>>> purpose nor on the test setup so I didn't try to fix it. If that helps I
>>> could dig futher into it.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tomek
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Max Rydahl Andersen
>>> <max.andersen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> How about the patch allowing for streaming of output messages during
>>> pushes
>>> ?
>>>
>>> http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/egit-dev/msg03047.html
>>>
>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=398387 ->
>>> https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/9730/
>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=398404 ->
>>> https://git.eclipse.org/r/#/c/9732/
>>>
>>> This would give a *significant* usability for egit vs the command line
>>> IMO.
>>>
>>> The patch have been sitting there waiting for feedback for a while now -
>>> would love to
>>> get just some kind of info on what is missing for this to go in ?
>>>
>>> /max
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 08:32:11PM +0100, Matthias Sohn wrote:
>>>
>>> Eclipse projects are supposed to always have a plan.
>>> I created a draft for 2.4 [1] containing the new features which
>>> are already finished or close to that. Please review that and let me
>>> know if any features you plan to finish until 2.4 are missing.
>>> Committers can also edit the plan directly on this page.
>>>
>>> [1] https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/technology.egit/releases/2.4.0
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> egit-dev mailing list
>>> egit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/egit-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> egit-dev mailing list
>>> egit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/egit-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> egit-dev mailing list
>>> egit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/egit-dev
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> egit-dev mailing list
>> egit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/egit-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> egit-dev mailing list
> egit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/egit-dev
>