On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Mark Waite <mark.earl.wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Jim Lloyd <jim.ll...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Can't you obtain the results you want (on your different, but related >>> concern) by asking your developers to push a new branch for changes which >>> are to be built independently, rather than pushing to an existing branch? >>> I believe that when pushes are detected to a new branch, a new build is >>> queued. If multiple pushes to an existing branch are detected, they are >>> all batched together into a single job. >>> >> >> Most of the pushes are for new branches. A specific branch may have >> commits pushed to it multiple times, but the goal is that for most feature >> work, a developer pushes a feature/<unique-feature-name> branch only when >> they have completed the work on the feature, after already running unit >> tests on their workstation. If the Jenkins job passes, and no changes are >> requested by the reviewer in the of the Pull Request code review, then the >> feature branch can be merged and deleted with no additional commits. I >> believe the problem we have is that the Git plugin assumes that a Jenkins >> job is used for one specific branch, and is therefore partially confused >> when a job is configured to match a wildcard pattern like 'feature/**'. >> >> > The git plugin tries to handle the workflow you're describing. If it > detects changes on multiple branches, it schedules a separate build for > each branch. > > The git plugin does not handle the presentation of differences from a base > branch nearly as well as I'd like. I'm still not sure of the best way to > envision how it should do that. I think "difference to the base branch" is > the model that best fits how I envision it, but I'm open to other ideas. > Yes, I think you're right, difference from the base branch would be the best solution. > You mentioned that you'd like the set of changes to simply be the changes > contained in the push. That seems like a model which even git does not > fully support. There is no record in the git repository of which push > submitted a particular change. If a branch contains 5 commits, those > commits could have been pushed in a single "git push" or in 5 separate > calls to "git push" or some combination. > Good point! I see I was making a naive assumption. > Aren't you really wanting the presented differences to be the differences > between the base branch and the feature branch being evaluated with that > job? > Yes, you're right. If the base branch is known, 'git show-branch' can provide the commits. We currently have a situation where feature branches can be made off one of several long-lived branches. We could possibly create one job per long-lived branch, and change our feature branch naming convention so that each job would only build feature branches appropriate for it. But I wonder if it might be reasonable for us to enter all of the base branches that exist in the configuration, and then try 'git show-branch' against each base branch, choosing the one with the shortest list of commits? But perhaps the right way to do this is to instead configure the job to trigger builds on pull requests. In that scenario, we know exactly the set of commits. The problem with this is we currently benefit by making it possible to verify the feature branch builds before the PR is submitted. Jim > Mark Waite > > >> -Jim >> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Jim Lloyd <jim....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Our workflow using git is similar to the GitFlow >>>> <http://datasift.github.io/gitflow/IntroducingGitFlow.html> model that >>>> is now commonly used by many developer teams. In particular, we create >>>> feature branches that use the prefix feature/, and we have a Jenkins job >>>> configured to build any push to any branch matching the pattern >>>> 'origin/feature/**'. Developers work on these branches in parallel, so the >>>> order they are committed is not in any logical sequence. That is, it >>>> doesn't make sense for the jenkins job to consider the change set for the >>>> job to be the difference between the commit being built, and the commit >>>> built in the last successful run of the job. Rather, we'd like the set of >>>> changes to simply be the changes contained in the push. Is there any way to >>>> support this model? >>>> >>>> A different but related concern is what the job for building feature >>>> branches should do when it cannot keep up with multiple independent pushes >>>> of feature branches happening in quick succession. We currently have to >>>> throttle these jobs to run just one job at a time, and the jobs take >>>> approximately an hour. I think we'd like to ensure that every one of these >>>> pushes is eventually built, even if it results in a backlog that is only >>>> eventually cleared in the middle of the night. We are working on ways to >>>> allow jobs to run in parallel, but may have to live with the current setup >>>> for a month or two. In the meantime, is there a way to add jobs to the >>>> queue immediately, with the exact commit to build specified in the job? >>>> >>>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Jenkins Users" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to jenkinsci-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > Thanks! > Mark Waite > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Jenkins Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/jenkinsci-users/lLYJ5oZrFhc/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > jenkinsci-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jenkins Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to jenkinsci-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
