[kepler-dev] nightly builds
berkley at nceas.ucsb.edu
Thu Aug 4 13:47:46 PDT 2005
The nightly build should be working again now. you probably saw the
emails go by. Feel free to add any unit tests or workflow tests. Note
that workflow tests with visual components (i.e. Display, Plot, etc)
still won't run correctly until we get X working on the server again.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Timothy McPhillips wrote:
> Thanks for looking into this, Chad. I really appreciate having a
> central automated build system as a safety net, and the nightly unit
> tests are invaluable.
> I'm surprised you can run X applications from automated tests at all.
> Maybe we could separate the X and non-X tests into two different ant
> targets so that its clear when the non-X tests fail.
> On Aug 4, 2005, at 11:09 AM, Chad Berkley wrote:
>> Hey tim,
>> I know the nightly build is broken. there are several reasons. one
>> of which is that we can't run X on the server anymore (because we may
>> have been hacked through the open X connection) so the workflows with
>> visual components won't run. The other reason is probably the ptII
>> CVS move. I have that on my list of things to look at today.
>> Timothy McPhillips wrote:
>>> Hey Chad,
>>> This sounds like a great idea. I've been reluctant to check in
>>> presentations out of concern for further bulking up the kepler
>>> By the way, do you know what the story is with the nightly builds
>>> (something to do with the new anonymous CVS server for Ptolemy,
>>> maybe)? I have some unit tests I want to check in, but would like
>>> to wait until the nightly build is running successfully again.
>>> On Aug 4, 2005, at 10:30 AM, Chad Berkley wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> As I sit here checking out kepler (again), waiting forever for the
>>>> directory to finish, it occured to me that it might be ok to have a
>>>> different cvs repository for kepler docs. there's no reason why a
>>>> developer should have to checkout out a myriad of .doc and .ppt files
>>>> everytime you need a new version of kepler. It seems to me that docs
>>>> that actually go with the kepler software should stay in the kepler
>>>> repository, but publications, reports and the like could be stashed
>>>> somewhere else. Anyone have any reasons why this would be a bad idea?
>>>> Kepler-dev mailing list
>>>> Kepler-dev at ecoinformatics.org
>>>> kepler- dev
More information about the Kepler-dev