On 25 May 2014 21:52, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> On 25.05.2014, at 22:43, Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> 2014-05-25 18:34 GMT+02:00 Nicolas Cellier <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com>:
>>
>> 2014-05-25 2:39 GMT+02:00 Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi, thanks for noticing and investigating this!  Seeing this now, I
>> think we should signal an Error rather than a Warning to be more
>> TestCase friendly but also because persisting empty packages is so
>> painful, it should be an error, hands down.  Better to force a
>> resolution to the issue than silently persist modules of
>> future-pain...
>>
>>
>> In any case, I think you accidently uncovered bugs in Tests-Monticello.
>> I'm looking at a fix for a few hours, and it's really messy.
>>
>>
>> Hooray! After publishing Tests-nice.297 there is now a trunk CI job that finished
>> http://build.squeak.org/job/SqueakTrunk/857/
>>
>> Now we can see we have some regressions...
>> How could we live without CI before?
>>
>> Of course, for dissecting which change introduced which regression after a 2 month interrupt, that's going to be more pain than necessary...
>>
>
> To not make that happen again, can we make the jenkins mail squeak-dev on
> important (read me, not all) information?
> Like:
>         more tests fail
>         errors
>         (possibly one nightly information)

We possibly could, but I'd suggest _not_ doing so because even without
Nicolas's work (thanks very much, Nicolas!) we _normally_ have failing
tests, which means that the normal status of the SqueakTrunk build
would not be green.

Really, the ideal place to be is for the job to usually be green,
because then CI saying anything at all is cause for alarm, not yet
another false positive. And we're just not there, on a number of
fronts.

frank

> best
>         -tobias
>
>
>
>