I am all for this idea. I don't really know about anthill but I did look into hudson a little bit a while ago. It seems like it would meet our requirements but I haven't actually used the technology so I'm not sure how well it works. If we already have a solution, I'm not sure why we wouldn't go with that, though. Is there any reason we wouldn't want to use a setup similar to what we had before using anthill?
I'd be happy to get involved, especially if it makes it easier to verify tck when release time comes around. I'm kind of curious about how this would work, though. I assume someone would commit some code and this would trigger a tck test with the new code. How would errors be reported? Would we have to have all committers sign the NDA so we can report details of failures to whoever committed the changes? On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > As many of you know, we have two apache.org machines for TCK testing of > Geronimo (phoebe and selene). We used the machines for certification of our > 2.1.3 release. However, this testing was run manually. It's time to get > continuous, automatic TCK testing running on these machines. > > We had the basic setup running on GBuild machines. IIRC, this was built > around AntHill -- Jason Dillon knows it best. There are other testing > systems available (e.g. Hudson) which could be used for this task. > > What do others think? What underlying technology should we use? Who wants > to get involved? > > I think this discussion should be on our dev@ mailing list. TCK should be > for test specific discussions. > > --kevan > > -- ~Jason Warner
