On Sep 3, 2012, at 5:36 PM, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
+1 to cover its functionality by CI, in whatever way.
Maybe it would be good to switch the flag by default when testing
then, so that our runs are comparable with Jenkins runs?
Or we could have a different job testing core only, that should be enough?
My preference, in order to keep the number of jobs low and help everyone focus on the
failures in the jobs that matter, would be the former, which I've implemented in:
https://github.com/infinispan/infinispan/pull/1278
On 3 September 2012 16:58, Galder Zamarreño <galder(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Re:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-2237
>
> We don't have a jenkins job to run with infinispan.unsafe.allow_jdk8_ch=true, but
instead of creating a new one, I'd suggest switching the testsuite to run with
infinispan.unsafe.allow_jdk8_chm=true
>
> The reason I suggest this is cos we're confident things work as expected with the
JDK's CHM, so running the default testsuite with infinispan.unsafe.allow_jdk8_chm=true
would allow us to catch new failures wo/ the need of another job
>
> Thoughts?
> --
> Galder Zamarreño
> Sr. Software Engineer
> Infinispan, JBoss Cache
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Galder Zamarreño
galder(a)redhat.com
twitter.com/galderz
Project Lead, Escalante
http://escalante.io
Engineer, Infinispan
http://infinispan.org