Berin Loritsch wrote, On 28/02/2003 14.56:
Leo Sutic wrote:
Gump fails all three.
How is Maven in comparison?
Maven is a replacement for our ANT build script hackery.
They do have a project that is supposed to correct all the ills of GUMP.
However, I do have to say that the *concept* of GUMP is good. The fact that you build your project based on the current CVS of all the dependencies.
That part is good.
And I have started a build system based on Ant tasks that uses the same descriptor for day2day builds. I'm happy that you finally get to realize one of the basic motives why I started it.
I piggymack on Gump's CI feature, and use the same descriptor through Ant to have it always up2date.
And BTW, Gump does not build, it launches builds. So effectively you *do* use the same build tool when using Gump.
How it goes about doing it is a mess.
Yes and no.
Actually it is, but not per design ;-)
The implementation uses XSLT which seems to suck badly as a templating system. Change to Velocity, and it will get much better.
I have mused over not using scripts, but actually it's a feature of Gump: it totally abstracts from any Java system, so it can even run native builds and not suffer from JVM errors itself.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
