On Oct 8, 2008, at 11:56 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Oct 8, 2008, at 4:31 PM, Jason Warner wrote:
We had some suggestions earlier for some alternate means of
implementing this (Hudson, Conitnuum, etc...). Now that we've had
Jason Dillon provide an overview of what we had in place before,
does anyone have thoughts on what we should go with? I'm thinking
we should stick with the AHP based solution. It will need to be
updated most likely, but it's been tried and tested and shown to
meet our needs. I'm wondering, though, why we stopped using it
before. Was there a specific issue we're going to have to deal
with again?
IIRC, the overwhelming reason we stopped using it before was because
of hosting issues -- spotty networking, hardware failures, poor colo
support, etc. We shouldn't have any of these problems, now. If we do
run into problems, they should now be fixable. I have no reason to
favor Hudson/Continuum over AHP. So, if we can get AHP running
easily, I'm all for it. There's only one potential issue, that I'm
aware of.
We previously had an Open Source License issued for our use of
Anthill. Here's some of the old discussion -- http://www.nabble.com/Geronimo-build-automation-status-(longish)-tt7649902.html#a7649902
Although the board was aware of our usage of AntHill, since we
weren't running AntHill on ASF hardware, I'm not sure the license
was fully vetted by Infra. I don't see any issues, but I'll want to
run this by Infra.
Jason D, will the existing license cover the version of AntHill that
we'll want to use? I'll run the license by Infra and will also
describe the issue for review by the Board, in our quarterly report.
IMO, I'd proceed with the assumption that we'll be using AHP. Just
don't install it on Apache hardware, yet.
I've requested a new license from Anthill. Will let you know when I
get it.
--kevan
