<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/05/2014 04:10 PM, Max Rydahl
Andersen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:FEFC7EB2-323E-46D4-8B55-E93F86DAA86B@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Great we are looking at rationalizing what metadata we generate but I
think
it is the wrong question being asked. It is not wether we use the files,
it is wether we need them.</pre>
</blockquote>
We'll obviously keep the ones we need. Nick and I seemed to identify
that only GIT_REVISION.txt and build.properties are currently needed
for aggregation and are actually used occasionally.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:FEFC7EB2-323E-46D4-8B55-E93F86DAA86B@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The build logs are also mostly for investigative purposes and if these
were actually available within a build that would useful (removes need
to wait for jenkins to load)</pre>
</blockquote>
Hypothetical "would" isn't enough here. For investigation, I find it
pretty acceptable and consistent with the possible failures to
either look at Jenkins log directly or re-run the build locally.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:FEFC7EB2-323E-46D4-8B55-E93F86DAA86B@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">What is missing is actually being able to find and read this info.</pre>
</blockquote>
Can you please elaborate on an *actual* use-case which drives you to
this assumption?<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:FEFC7EB2-323E-46D4-8B55-E93F86DAA86B@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">i.e.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://download.jboss.org/jbosstools/builds/staging/jbosstools-4.2.1.CR1-build-core/2014-11-23_23-27-39-B304/logs/md5sums.txt">http://download.jboss.org/jbosstools/builds/staging/jbosstools-4.2.1.CR1-build-core/2014-11-23_23-27-39-B304/logs/md5sums.txt</a>
doesn't actually list the zip name the md5sum relate to...also it looks
like the numbers are always the same which smells like a bug.</pre>
</blockquote>
I agree on the smell of a bug there.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:FEFC7EB2-323E-46D4-8B55-E93F86DAA86B@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Also the git logs only says the sha1, but not which repository it comes
from.</pre>
</blockquote>
I plan to fix this in the publish mojo I'm working on.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:FEFC7EB2-323E-46D4-8B55-E93F86DAA86B@redhat.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Thus I think most of this info is actually very relevant info to have
but looks like it could be cleaned up, checked for errors and document
it.</pre>
</blockquote>
It may be relevant, but is it worth the maintenance effort?<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Mickael Istria<br>
Eclipse developer at <a href="http://www.jboss.org/tools">JBoss,
by Red Hat</a><br>
<a href="http://mickaelistria.wordpress.com">My blog</a> - <a
href="http://twitter.com/mickaelistria">My Tweets</a></div>
</body>
</html>