Stefan Bodewig <> wrote on 06/25/2013 03:59:56 AM:

> On 2013-06-24, Michael Glavassevich wrote:
> > Projects like Xerces and Xalan are near the bottom of the food chain. 
> > always thought the projects higher up in the stack got more value from
> > Gump.
> Unless Xalan or Xerces breaks something :-) In this case you get the
> early warning by other project's builds failing.  That's why monitoring
> your dependee's builds is a crucial part of getting anything useful out
> of Gump.

I don't think we ever did that.

> Shall I translate this to "we're not too eager on keeping our Gump
> builds"?

I'd translate that to "we don't get much out of it but others might".

> > I don't remember the last time we got a notification for a legitimate
> > build failure at our level. It was a rather rare occurrence, even
> > while e-mail notifications were still being sent out.
> Well, yes, see above.  No email doesn't mean no downstream has been
> broken.

True, but if that occurred I'd expect the broken project (who would have 
been notified by Gump) would at some point open a discussion with us about 
the problem we caused and I don't recall the last time that happened 
either, if it ever did. That's more of a statement about the stability of 
Xerces and Xalan than anything else. The rate of change is nowhere near 
like it was 10 years ago.

> Thanks
>         Stefan
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Michael Glavassevich
XML Technologies and WAS Development
IBM Toronto Lab

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

Reply via email to