I like the idea of a dedicated build mechanism. While I'm not sure how I would use the same mechanism for Chainsaw because of the code- signing requirement, it is _so_ easy to miss a dependent jar and create a build that misses JMS or something. I'd run out of fingers if I tried to count the number of times I did that when making a distro for Chainsaw.... :)

It's also easy to accidently compile with JDK 5.0 or something. I'd much prefer it built with a stringent JDK requirement that matches what we're targeting.

Paul

On 20/05/2005, at 6:07 AM, Mark Womack wrote:

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]





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to