On Sun, 2002-02-24 at 10:51, John Morrison wrote: > I *know* that it would be the best way forwards - but think about > the inertia that Sam had to over come to get GUMP accepted (and > I don't think all have done yet) in Jakarta/Apache projects.
This is the whole problem I see with Gump in that it is currently highly centralized and not easy for people to participate because it requires the maintenance of a descriptor that really has nothing to do with day-to-day development. If you make a project descriptor part of day-to-day development then participating in Gump builds is no brainer. This is the approach I've taken with Maven, if you use Maven to for your project then participation in Gump builds will be automated and correct. If your project doesn't want to use Maven (or something like it) then you get to maintain your Gump descriptor by hand and change in dependencies usually results in a project failing to build until Sam fixes it manually. I don't actually care if anyone uses Maven, I made it to help manage Turbine projects and Tambora, the project I deal with on a daily basis. But I plan to move all the Turbine projects over to using Maven and hopefully this will make managing turbine easier and provide up-to-date correctness for Gump. > Also - how do you see the mechanism for *adding* projects to the > GUMP build? If a project uses Maven then I will use BCEL and a JavaCC-based Java parser to find all the dependencies and provide CLI and GUI tools for adding to the Maven descriptor. I intend for it to be automated for the most part. > Should we only add the projects which Apache projects > rely on or should it be open to everyone who asks? I don't think so. I'm planning on making it easy to use Maven, and if someone uses it then they can very easily participate in Gump builds. > If it's > everyone have you considered the time it would take to cvs update, > rsync and build? Not to mention the harddrive requirements... Yes, I've considered it. I don't believe building from HEAD on a daily basis is particularly use for a project. I believe that as a project gains greater control over its domain and its developers have a great comprehension overall that they will have time to participate in things like Gump. For me Maven is not first and foremost a tool of pragmatic value and I'm not immediately concerned with the social experiment aspect which is Sam's imperative. I feel cooperation between projects will happen when the project itself is easier to manage. So I think building against HEAD is something that could happen on a weekly basis. Projects could be notified of an impending build, the descriptor could be transfered to the build machine and then the build happens. This would obviously need some work but I call it a reactor and a reactor can have any number of participants. I'm setting on up for Tambora so we can have a reactor that deals with the projects that are of immediate concern to me but the same process, I believe, would work for larger builds. But I feel that the impetus must come from the projects and it has to be easy to participate which is what I'm trying to do with Maven. > I don't see this happening. Prove me wrong - I'd love to see > GUMP used everywhere (I use it mainly internally). I see it happening mainly because I see it as requiring very minimal effort eventually. I hope to use the Turbine projects as an example of how easy it will be to participate and at the same time alleviate Sam of the burden of having to deal with our turbine descriptors which are often a great source of irritation. > J. > > <snip/> > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
