Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. USKarl
    primarykey
    data
    text
    plurals
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. COIt's listed. Under Job A > Configure > Source Code Management we set Sub-path. So it's narrowed. But under Job A > Changes I can see commits which are related to other job/project! Maybe our Hudson is misconfigured? I don't know, and donno, where can I find a little field/setting what I should thick on, and everything would be really separated... No idea...
      singulars
    2. COFirst of all, thanks for your reply! But unfortunately P1, P2 and P3 are really separated maven based projects. Theoretically they have no common part, only at the dependency level. (but that's another issue, i would think) So all projects uses the same repo, but there is no common part. At Hudson level J1 job builds P1 J2 builds P2 and J3 P3. (so no common xyz project) I would think this is not a big issue to determine which user caused the problem in P1, if you have real separated projects/jobs.
      singulars
    3. CONo. Unfortunately U1 U2 and U3 also has got notification about project P1 failure because these users made commit almost in the same time (I think). Anyway what is the main rule behind the break up of Changes? I mean when I check one job's Changes link, I can see for example these kind of things: Changes #13 (2011.02.16. 12:33:29) 12313 comment 31 12312 comment 22 12311 comment 21 #12 (2011.02.16. 09:33:29) 12213 comment 13 #11 (2011.02.14. 09:33:29) 10213 comment 3 But at our side these commits related to different components: 12313 comment 31 12312 comment 22 12311 comment 21
      singulars
 

Querying!

 
Guidance

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload