On 30 Jan 2004, at 11:17, Adam R. B. Jack wrote:
Mark wrote:
I wanted to to attempt to coordinate with Gump folks concerning nightly
builds, the new maven repository on the apache server and other
interesting tidbits.
I needed some time to mull this over before I responded. I see you have good
intentions to try to pull a bunch of things together, and I respect that.
That said, I don't think they should fit.
Every time I try to match Gump with nightly builds, I come up against a
philosophical problem which Stefan explained. Gump isn't doing nightly
builds (against a stable base), it is doing nightly integration test builds
(an unstable 'box of chocolates' :).
Yes. Many people believe that Gump is like Tinderbox but it's not. The fact that it generates jars and javadocs is a *byproduct* of it.
At the same time, I think it would be useful to have both things: each module should be built twice, the first time with "latest-greatest dependencies" and the second time with "tested dependencies".
This might require some thinking but it would definately solve the issues and yield two different signals: one for the box of chocolates, one for the nightly built process.
I think they are both important.
And I have the gut feeling that in order to have a meaningful FoG number, you need a history of both information. [but I have to think about that more because it seems to be a pretty complex graph-theory-related issue]
-- Stefano.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
