So, I was a little surprised to learn that doing official builds for log4j are not much different than how I do my own development builds right now (correct me if I misinterpreted your email to me, Ceki). Somehow I had this vision of an "official" build machine somewhere. And it got me to thinking. I could have a virus or something on my machine that day, or my daughter could have gone crazy on neopets.com and it could affect the build. There are a myriad of possible issues, some more remote that others. But...
Is there any reason we could/should not do our official builds using the nightly Gump build process? We could set the right version number in the build.xml (like 1.2.11rc1), let Gump do its build, review the test results, grab the resulting build from Gump and post it to the web site and/or distribution. Once we are happy with the rc candidate, change the build.xml file to the real build number, let Gump do the build, grab that build and post it. Change the build.xml file to the next prerelease version after that, etc. Gump could be used to build multiple versions/branches using the same process for each. I have never worked at a company where official builds were done on the developer's desktop (well, ok, there were those extreme cases, but we don't talk about those...:-)). There was always at least a dedicated build machine and most of the time even a dedicated build engineer. So, using Gump for official builds seems like a good idea on the face of it. The environment is known and probably more stable. There is testing involved. We can see if the build broke a large number of dependent projects, etc. There might be some issues with the build numbers, but is there a good reason to not use Gump for official builds? -Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
