Yup, might need to resurrect that stuff if we plan on using it again.
--jason
On Oct 16, 2008, at 10:39 PM, Jason Warner wrote:
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
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
