On Tuesday 18 November 2003 03:47, Leo Simons wrote: > Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > On Monday 17 November 2003 22:37, Leo Simons wrote: > >>* Gump. > > > > I think you lost the "little guy", when "�ber b�ilder" came in. At least, > > I have a very humble opinion about Gump that <-------censored-----> > > Reminds me of a similar opinion of Maven... > > Never mind. > > the point is the need for continuous integration. Gump is sort-of ugly > yes, but it is a lot less ugly than everything else. Do you think > continuous integration is bad and/or not worth the effort?
I like CI, but I don't feel that Gump is providing my need, which of course is very different from Apache's needs. I like CI in the form of, "I change a line or two, and make sure it still works." Gump is "too infrequent", yet.... I don't know. Can I take an "Ulrich" on that :D > >>* CVS. > > > > Advanced CVS?? What are you having in mind? An continously integrated > > trunk, and a branch for each change, merged back when completed? > > Let us call everything other than add|commit|import using a GUI tool > 'advanced'. Regular tagging, use of branches for refactoring, stuff like > that. We don't need to go mozilla-style :D Ok. I know Stephen is a "scared raven", but I think someone like your experience around here should establish an offical guideline. Niclas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
