Whoops... just realized that this was actually removed and I was looking at a stickied revision of viewVC. Nevermind.
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Jason Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While we wait to hear back in regards to the license, I'm going to update > the maven used in build-support. The server now requires 2.0.9 and the > version currently used by build support is 2.0.5. I suppose we'll need to > update ant, as well. What version of ant should we be using? 1.7.1? > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Kevan Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> >> 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<http://www.nabble.com/Geronimo-build-automation-status-%28longish%29-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 >> >> > > > -- > ~Jason Warner > -- ~Jason Warner
