Andy writes: [snip] > I think I'd be resistant to trying an Apache project that wasn't > committed to working on GUMP. Previous to GUMP most projects were known
Ok, now who's spreading the 'D' in FUD....Maven can generate a basic gump descriptor. > to be painfully tied to particular versions of particular libraries. > This has gotten a lot better since GUMP came on line. [snip] > So while I wish centipede and Maven would work together to create a > better project (like I said, I'm but a pebble in the avalanche), I don't > care which build a project uses. But I do care if Maven has decided not > to build through GUMP as sooner or later I'm going to want to use a See previous comment. I've volunteered to get it working. I haven't yet had a reply from Sam though. > project that uses Maven (assuming its successful) and boy I'll be ticked > if Maven causes dependancy problems that would have been self-resolving > had GUMP been properly used to test it. > Am I volunteering, well no (I can't as continuous integration has to be > an active commitment by a community, and I'm not a part of that > community...partly because builds bore me), but I think I'll change my > position into actively dissuading Maven's use if it isn't integrated > with GUMP as it could have a cascading effect on creating dependency > problems for the projects that use it. Gee thanks....what was that word again...FUD....is this the 'F' or 'U'. > And thats all I have to say about that, > PS these points are more elegantly stated here: > http://www.martinfowler.com/articles/continuousIntegration.html Which funnily enough never mentions gump from memory.... James Taylor wrote: -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Work: http://www.multitask.com.au Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers
