They'll just get to see what it is like to be you or me. ;-) James -- Dr James Cummings, Academic IT, University of Oxford -----Original Message----- From: Martin Holmes [mholmes@uvic.ca] Received: Tuesday, 08 Dec 2015, 18:51 To: tei-council@lists.tei-c.org [tei-council@lists.tei-c.org] Subject: Re: [tei-council] Pure ODD progress Thanks Kevin! People might get rapidly tired of it, of course. Cheers, Martin On 15-12-08 08:32 AM, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
The tei-council list only allows posting by members and those specifically granted posting permission. I had previously set up ^.*@github.com as an allowed sender, but I've just added council@tei-c.org to the sender filter. So I hope the messages will start coming through now.
Kevin
On 12/8/15 10:28 AM, Martin Holmes wrote:
Hi Lou,
It's definitely sending the email to the Council list; TEI Council shows as one of the recipients when I get it (and James should see it too, so he can confirm).
The Oxford box is sending from:
Oxford TEI Jenkins Server
and mine is sending from:
Victoria TEI Jenkins
However, I don't actually see any of these messages from either server in the Council archives:
http://lists.tei-c.org/pipermail/tei-council/2015/date.html
so I suspect they're just being ignored; you may be seeing direct messages to yourself from the Oxford server, which is not for some reason happening on the Victoria server.
There was some discussion about whether we wanted these messages to go to the list or not, and I seem to remember the consensus was against it. How do we feel? Should we try to make this happen?
Cheers, Martin
On 15-12-08 06:03 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
Yes, that was my understanding, but I don't think he is. After I fixed the detest bug in the dev branch, I got a notification from his Oxonian incarnation, but the Victorian one remains silent sfaics.
On 08/12/15 13:43, Martin Holmes wrote:
Hi Lou,
Mr Jinks should write to the Council list "when a build fails, becomes unstable or returns to stable". It's building P5 now, so we'll see if it does. I've configured mine to build the PureODD branch after P5 if P5 succeeds.
Cheers, Martin
On 15-12-08 05:03 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
Have fixed the detest.log in expected results in the dev branch so that the test should not fail.
Mr Jenkins doesnt seem to tell me when failures occur any more, so I can't tell whether this worked or not though.
On 07/12/15 13:41, Martin Holmes wrote:
... However, if the two branches get out of sync in other ways, then that won't hold so well. Perhaps you should apply your fix for Syd's Schematron problem to the main branch too.
Cheers, Martin
>> However, the main build has been broken for a few days by either >> Lou >> or Syd: >> >> http://teijenkins.hcmc.uvic.ca/job/TEIP5-Test/lastFailedBuild/changes >> >> >> >> >> So that needs to be fixed before we can expect the rest to build >> OK. > Yes. The detest expected output has changed as a result of Syd's new > schematron rule, so that needs to be updated. I have fixed this in > the > lb42-pureodd-2 branch. > >
-- tei-council mailing list tei-council@lists.tei-c.org http://lists.lists.tei-c.org/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived