Danny,
> But to buy into [continuous integration] for James
> I'd have to have confidence that changes which are
> made to support avalon head changes, and which break
> james for avalon stable packages, will make it into
> stable avalon packages in reasonable time for us to
> release the james head more or less when we want to.
I don't believe that there is any question that the Avalon project has had
some release issues, but they got a major wakeup call in November, and I
think that things are changing. The first major test for them, in some
ways, is going to be the ACR, which will mark a major shift from the
piecemeal mindset to one that understands that there actually is something
called Avalon, not just a loose confederation of code tied by the
Frameworks.
Nicola is proposing that if there are changes made to Avalon that break
James, that we ought to be able to run over to avalon-dev and have a say on
those changes. We do get a GUMP report, when GUMP is able build the
predicates.
I also think that the Avalon project needs to be extremely careful because
of the delayed feedback that errorneous changes will engender. They may
have to push the use of JUnit for their components in the future because
otherwise they don't really have good code coverage, or even good
application feedback until Avalon breaks some client code down the line.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
