Setting up a Quality Team within KDE

Andreas Pakulat apaku at
Mon Apr 9 20:53:24 BST 2012

On 09.04.12 16:27:17, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> > Well, I'd say jenkins has a lot more to offer than cdash. Its also a lot
> > simpler to use, setup and understand for newcomers in my opinion. With
> > jenkins I can have a shell-script job which runs cmake && make && make
> > test and be done. Setting up a build for submission to cdash takes a lot
> > more effort - at least it did when I tried to do this maybe things got
> > easier meanwhile.
> It has been simpler than I thought when I have set the functionality
> up with a little bit of guidance last summer. I think we could
> probably even make the setup easier with some automated script or so
> by solving the boilerplate part of the relevant cmake files. As far as
> I see the admin setting this up needs to know some parameters if I am
> not too mistaken.
> I do not have any opinions about the web interface differences because
> I do not visit that. I have been getting the warnings, errors and unit
> test failures via email, if any.

Hmm, that may work if your project has usually no warnings, but I find
this for warnings to be too much noise. The CI mails should immediately
tell me if CI is considered broken (and warnings are often not
considered that) or not and if its broken show me the error so I don't
need to go to the website to fix it - ideally.

> I will also try out this Jenkins in the future once I find the time
> for that, but I have been a happy CDash user for about ten months by
> now. :-) can give you a pretty good idea of how jenkins "looks" and
can be used to do CI.


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list