Robert Godfrey wrote:
Is the continuous build set up part of the project though? That is,
even if
we use AntHillPro (or any other solution) for our own continuous build...
there's nothing stopping anyone else setting up their own continous build
using any technology they like. (Although if they do so can I strongly
request them not to spam the qpid-dev list with the results :-) ).
I believe it should be. There's nothing stopping people from
independently writing
any number of continuous build systems but thats all wasted effort that
could
instead be put into building one really good shared system, or into
doing Qpid development.
1. is AntHill offering a license for any of the contributors to run a
continuous build against the apache subversion project?
2. is there any restriction on the number of continuous build systems
thus
set up?
3. if individual contributors / organisations take wish advantage of
such a
license, is the qpid community as a whole happy to credit AntHill in the
manner required.
4. finally even of the Qpid community is happy to credit AntHill, is
Apache
happy to allow Qpid to do so
I think we're of a similar opinion except that I feel that anyone with
an interest in Qpid, not just the comitters, should be able to use and
contribute to the continuous build system just like any other part of
the project.
From the matrix it looks like it has a stronger web interface that
CruiseControl. Distributed builds is a red herring IMO. Build
distribution should be done by the developer build system (e.g. using
distcc for make) not the continuous build system. "Native" make
integration sounds nice but integration via ant is so straightforward
that I can't imagine what additional value it provides.
If the license allows anyone to use & contribute to the Qpid continuous
build system, for purposes of testing Qpid only, then those advantages
make AntHill worth considering . If its only for use by all contributors
(present and future) then I'd be reluctant but might be open to
persuasion if AntHill turns out to be really cool. If the license
restricts us to a limited number of hosts, specific named companies or
the like then I'm dead against it.
Cheers,
Alan.
