Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
I agree. For Cactus, we're keeping a pretty damn good eye on the Gump results and tend to react to problems very quickly, because we use Gump for our nightly builds. I get cold shivers when I see a Cactus build soaked in a red background :-)Sam Ruby wrote:For projects I care about (and that's a *lot* of projects), I want the descriptors to *either* be actively maintained or someplace that bodewig, conor, Stephen, myself, and several others (hi leosimons and mpoeschl and mvdb and cmlenz!) can update.This is not your requirement, it's a Gump need. It's quite evident to all.
Your way of making Gump runs work is to have a deep knowledge aff all Jakarta codebases and fix them yourself.
My view is that the Gump descriptors are the base of the daily builds of a project, so that users will be *forced* to maintain most of it, or else the project won't compile.
The vast majority of projects doesn't really on Gump for anything, though, which gets very evident in the universe of Maven built projects, for example.
I think keeping the Gump descriptor close to the project makes a lot of sense. But other situations like the recent mass-optionalizing of jaxp are also a concern. Perhaps, just following the guideline that projects should be able to maintain their gump descriptor themselves, as long as they really *care* about the results, is sufficient here.
For now, I'll leave the Cactus descriptor in jakarta-cactus.
--
Christopher Lenz
/=/ cmlenz at gmx.de
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
