Sam Ruby wrote:
> The real question in my mind is - is the information provided by Gump
> useful?
Yes, much so. But I personally think of Gump taking care of two concerns
at once, and, as today, it doesn't clearly separate them:
1) making sure each single project compiles (nighly build)
2) making sure the HEAD of the entire CVS compiles against one another.
> Would it be made any more or less useful by nailing down the
> version of Batik that FOP was compiled against?
Some people see GUMP as a "nightly build" type of system, but it's not.
It's a simple way to track dependencies and how changes reflect onto
other projects to give them a sense of responsibility for their actions.
I love this. I really do.
But I think we also need a nightly build system and Gump could easily
(as Sam tells me) provide both, so, why not doing both?
Gump could build each project twice: the first time (as for nightly
build) with the tagged version of the CVS modules it requires, the
second time, with the head of the CVS.
Both information is useful and both has value, IMO.
What do you think?
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
