[Cruisecontrolrb-users] Git support - kinda works, have design questions

[Jason Sallis]

Alex, have you considered using a shortened version of the revision  
hash for display? With git, you can do 'git rev-parse --short HEAD' to  
get a more readable but unique enough revision hash to id the build  
with. I'm not sure if mercurial or other distributed vc systems have  
such an option, but it would work for git at least. Just a thought.

- Jason

On 6-May-08, at 3:53 PM, Alexey Verkhovsky wrote:

> As of now, I can create a project from Git repository, run a builder
> on it, and even run the dashboard. Build pages look ugly because
> build.label in git is very long, a bunch of unit tests is failing, and
> I had to disable some functionality, namely displaying source control
> errors in the dashboard.
>
> SourceControl::AbstractAdapter#execute_with_error_log (formerly known
> as Subversion::execute_with_error_log) had a bold assumption that any
> command writing anything in stderr has failed. This is not true for
> Git. Actually (and this really sucks), I even found a case where Git
> command returns a non-zero exit code upon successful completion.
> Namely, "git remote update" - I had to replace that with lower level
> "git fetch origin" that seems to do the right thing. None of that is
> documented behavior, as far as I can tell.
>
> Anyhow, it works for some value of "works" now. ThoughtWorks IS needs
> to punch a hole in the firewall so that ccrb.tw.com can talk to
> RubyForge Git server. Once that is done, I am deploying the current
> tip.
>
> Meantime, there is one pretty important design decision to be made.
> Commit id in distributed source control systems tends to be a very
> long random hex string. So, our convention of using revision number as
> build labels doesn't work - neither for displaying, nor for ordering
> builds.
>
> If we still use those hashes for build labels, we'll need to order
> builds by mtime of a build directory and display abbreviated build
> labels instead of full ones. Or we need to generate our own build
> numbers. Either way sucks, in its own special way. Does anyone have a
> strong preference or a better idea?
>
> -- 
> Alexey Verkhovsky
> CruiseControl.rb [http://cruisecontrolrb.thoughtworks.com]
> RubyWorks [http://rubyworks.thoughtworks.com]
> _______________________________________________
> Cruisecontrolrb-users mailing list
> Cruisecontrolrb-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/cruisecontrolrb-users