On Friday 20 May 2005 07:09, Curt Arnold wrote: > I subscribe to the Gump list and there has been chatter that I'm not > sure I'm interpreting correctly, but it appears that the main Gump > server "Brutus" is being redeployed so Gump will be off-line for a > few days and will be reborn running on a VM somewhere.
This is correct. IIUIC, Brutus has been taken out of Gump service and going to do something else, and the Gump folks getting some other machine(s). I have not followed the details too closely. > Gump wouldn't be appropriate for release builds since our > dependencies would be on a current snapshot of, for example, jakarta- > oro and not a particular released version. This is also entirely correct. Gump will always build against the latest build (same run) of each of the declared dependencies. Also, it will not generate any output that you declare, instead timestamped file(s). > Having a dedicated VM for builds would be useful. Particularly if we > are able to share the VM image. Might be good to ask on the Gump > list to see if they have any thoughts or recommendations. This request has come many times, and IMHO is not the scope of Gump per se. It might seem strange at frist, but it boils down to the difference between "build against known dependencies" (nightly build) vs. "build against latest dependencies" (gump). The purpose of Gump is not to check that your code compiles (which some people incorrectly assumes), but to check that your dependees code builds against your latest code, and provide an early warning system. I also think that infrastructure have had some discussions about 'build machines' for nightly builds, but don't know the outcome. Cheers Niclas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
