On 1/1/02 7:12 PM, "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> AFAIK, all the Jakarta sub-projects try to ensure (but cannot guarantee) > that the nightly builds remain usuable. The idea being you build and > test it on your own machine before committing it to the CVS. Of course, > since we are human and our tests are imperfect, the nigthly builds > sometimes break. But I believe that is the exception rather than the > rule, especially for products that already have a release under their > belt. I believe we all hope and expect that a good number of people will > be putting the nightly builds to use, so we know if what we are > developing is working for everyone else. Error isn't the only issue - I think that the projects have the right to do whatever they want with their CVS HEAD. Gump tells them that they are straying from previous API commitments if that's the case, or functionality changes or whatever... The nightly (for many, anyway) is just a convenience for those that are unable to get the CVS tree (because of corporate firewall policy) or don't want to (for whatever reason). > > My only point is that some products are developing against another > product's nightly build, and to build product A you need the JAR from > product B's nightly build. Yep - that's a good thing - I am long overdue for committing my JJAR changes, and would be happy to add CVS HEAD as a version choice when available, to be supplied by gump. That's a great thing. However, I will continue the riff that released versions are important and different. > So, in addition of providing JARs alongside the formal releases, I would > say it's a good idea to provide nightly JARs alongside the nightly > builds, so long as it is not difficult to make this part of the > automatic process. Yep - it shouldn't be hard with JJAR if Sam puts things in the same place all the time - after all, it's always going to be the same version... > -Ted. > > > Vincent Massol wrote: >> I would say it depends on the project and the meaning you give to the >> word "release". For the Cactus project, a nightly build produces exactly >> the same files as a "release" and can be used with a great deal of >> confidence. The only difference with a release is that a release has a >> goal, i.e. we have voluntarily decided that when such and such features >> are put in, then it would warrant a release. >> >> I like to use GUMP for 2 purposes : >> * Early detection of contentions with dependent projects, >> * Automated builds/integration, leading to a daily "release" (in the >> agile way). Users are encouraged to use the nightly builds and not wait >> for releases. >> >> It may be different for other projects though but I tend to like this >> philosophy ... :-) >> >> [snip] >> >> -Vincent >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -- Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] System and Software Consulting You're going to end up getting pissed at your software anyway, so you might as well not pay for it. Try Open Source. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
