Marcus - how do you navigate to that view from the Build #890 of PharoLauncher? When I click on the link you show - thats that output I first saw in the console from the list of builds for Pharo Launcher (which is what I was looking for) - and when I click on �Back To Project� it takes me to the 890 build results page - however if I was looking at build 889 - where on that page do I click to see that output?

I think if I understand that - this would give the information we would expect - and then we can either document this, or maybe put some artefact in every build (via a script) that lets people easily navigate to see what a build was composed off (as it seems that the info is there).

Tim

On that page, 
On 2 Sep 2014, at 09:14, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:

The job is a matrix build... the outer job just triggers the matrix builds (see the link "default",), the log is there:



On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote:
Guys - I�ve noticed that when a build completed on the Inria infrastructure, for a short time the console output correctly shows all the artefacts that were used to create that build - e.g. the slices loaded etc. However after a short time - the output then reverts to something like below (which isn�t as useful): 

Started by upstream project " [8mha:AAAAqh+LCAAAAAAAAP9b85aBtbiIQTGjNKU4P08vOT+vOD8�.
originally caused by:
 [URLTrigger] A change within the response URL invocation (log)
Building remotely on pharo-contribution-winxp in workspace C:\builds\workspace\PharoLauncher

Deleting project workspace� done
---

I�ve looked at a few other jobs (I noticed this for Pharo Launcher) and they seem the same. I think the jobs aren�t configured properly? - As normally (at least in other languages like Java), the intent is that the console output reflects what was on the console when the job was run. I have a hunch that something is overwriting these files before they are archived away.

As we don�t seem to have other details of what went into a build job (which is another issue - I would expect the changes page for a build to also show this info in a better format).

Do you think this could be fixed?

tim




--
--
Marcus Denker  --  denker@acm.org
http://www.marcusdenker.de