openerp-community team mailing list archive

[Fabien Pinckaers <fp@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/24/2013 06:43 PM, Pedro Manuel Baeza Romero wrote:
> Hi, Fabien, thanks for pointing out the problems with runbot. I'm not
> sure who added this branch and if they are correct, and I'm not very
> familiar with runbot, but I can check it. Let's wait if someone know about.
> 
> Is there any documentation for runbot, naming conventions and so on?

In a few words:
  - runbot follows a team, all the branches of the team are monitored
    automatically. Any partner can add a team through the partner portal
    The ocb team is already loaded. You can view all teams from the top
    menu. "Teams"
  - branches should be in the right project: server, web, addons
  - if a branch does not follow the right convention, runbot shows you
    a warning and an explanation on how to do

Naming convention:
  lp:~ocb/openobject-addons/VERSION-BRANCHNAME

Check official branches for real examples:
  http://runbot.openerp.com/

Runbot keeps only 100 branches running in parallel. So, you can connect
and test a branch online only for a few hours. But you can click build
to force a rebuild of a branch.

On a branch, you can:
  - click on a gear to read the log where you get the traceback if the
    branch is red
  - click on connect to test online (or the button on its right to
    select between an empty DB or a DB with all modules loaded)

Runbot (and automated tests) is very important. I can't even imagine how
you can develop features without using it.

> 
> Regards.
> 
> 
> 2013/10/24 Fabien Pinckaers <fp@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:fp@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> 
>     IMHO, the emergency for OCB branches is to fix bugs that have been
>     introduced in these branches.
> 
>     I am not sure if it's tracking the right branches, but it looks like the
>     OCB branches are red on runbot:
>       http://runbot.openerp.com/ocb.html
> 
>     Also, I would suggest every contribution to follow the runbot naming
>     convention so that feature branches are also tested. This simplifies the
>     merge proposal review a lot because you can:
>       - test functionalities online
>       - check that the branch is still green
> 
>     The rule we use for official modules is to never merge a branch that
>     breaks automated tests.
> 
>     On 10/23/2013 07:28 AM, Quentin THEURET wrote:
>     > Le 23/10/2013 01:03, Nhomar Hernández a écrit :
>     >> Hello.
>     > Hello,
>     >>
>     >> In the las days, we are seeing a really big increase in the proposal
>     >> to include new branchs/modules on the Community / OCA branches.
>     >>
>     >> It is one of the best moments of the community, we must continue in
>     >> this way.
>     > I'm happy to see that. It proves that community has a good future !
>     >
>     >> BTW, when thing start to become big, we need to act fast, then, I
>     >> propose that the inclusion of Modules/Branches should be followed by
>     >> an explanation in a correct way, in the MP or in the Commit Message
>     >> .... or in the OCA site </bestoption I think>
>     > I think it's a good way to document all new proposals and know why we
>     > include this module in this project.
>     >
>     >>
>     >> But as everybody know the "Correct" way can be subjective, to avoid
>     >> this subectivity, I propose use a "Format" already known may be
>     >> modigied with our reality, it is the format that the Python
>     Foundation
>     >> use:
>     >>
>     >> Here an example really new:
>     >>
>     >> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0453/
>     > I read this. But, who should write these documents ? I don't think
>     that
>     > the community has time to write these things. May be some developers
>     > will develop their own branches to avoid to write these documents
>     before
>     > asking for a merge. And we could lost some good modules…
>     > We shouldn't make the new comers afraid because of that.
>     >
>     > The format to respect is IMHO too complicated according to our
>     > community. The OpenERP community is not larger as Python community… If
>     > the community is agree with this concept, we should make a simplest
>     > "format".
>     >
>     >> Before end I just want to say it is just an Idea, if we have a
>     >> agreement, We can invest more time in investigate more deeply, what
>     >> Tools/Concepts/Formats/Process should be involved, and share with you
>     >> our conclusions.
>     >
>     > I let other community members to give their point of view, because I
>     > think it's an important thing but we can't made a mistake on this
>     if we
>     > want that all of us (and new comers) respect this "format".
>     >
>     > Regards,
>     >
> 
> 
>     --
>     Fabien Pinckaers
>     CEO OpenERP
>     Chaussée de Namur 40
>     B-1367 Grand-Rosière
>     Belgium
>     Phone: +32.81.81.37.00 <tel:%2B32.81.81.37.00>
>     Fax: +32.81.73.35.01 <tel:%2B32.81.73.35.01>
>     Web: http://openerp.com
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
>     Post to     : openerp-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>     <mailto:openerp-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openerp-community
>     More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> 
> 


-- 
Fabien Pinckaers
CEO OpenERP
Chaussée de Namur 40
B-1367 Grand-Rosière
Belgium
Phone: +32.81.81.37.00
Fax: +32.81.73.35.01
Web: http://openerp.com