I think it's too late to debate the existance of continuum. I can probably understand why this new project was started. In fact, despite my agreement w/ the blog and a few quirks I experienced myself, I still deployed continuum here at work.
I think the important thing for continuum now is to continue to improve and catch up w/ some great-to-have features. The least I want is to have it fade away like Scarab.... ray, On 4/20/06, Barrie Treloar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/20/06, Rinku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > By that logic - just one development language/platform should be enough > > for all s/w development, why re-invent and invest in other > > languages/platforms?? > > > > I don't suppose there's anything stopping anyone from raising feature > > requests for Cruisecontrol on cruisecontrol lists. Questioning > > Continuum's existence IMHO is just silly. > > It is not silly. CruiseControl is an open source project, you can take > that project and add additional features to it and no one can stop > you. > > Continuum would have benefited from an existing architecture, with an > existing user base, to extend that platform to support Maven2. And > this would have removed the need to re-invent the plumbing of a > continuous integration system. > > I'm not questioning the new features of Continuum, as people believe > they are of value, I am questioning the need to re-invent the plumbing > part. >
