On 01/08/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't agree with this.
Elaborating on your point your should do CI under the latest version of
the kernel on the latest hardware architecture every time ;-)
I know you're just having fun, but the idea *really* is that you
compile against the tip of everything. The kernel and the hardware
don;t impact on that, but the compiler does, and for what its worth,
GUMP bootstraps itself by first building the tip of ant and then using
that for all its builds.
You have to define what is the "World" that you want to integrate.
In GUMP's case it is the world of Open Source.
I personally don't care if commons-collection create a new jar that will
not work with James. Instead I would like to know if jspf or postage
starts being incompatible with the latest trunk.
Thats a project level thing though, GUMP is about the bigger picture.
Furthermore when (if) we'll move to multi-module for james it will also
test the integration between the modules.
And I don't really want to have my builds broken by non-working velocity
as we don't use it and don't need it.
I know, and the answer is "thats not what GUMP is for"
About our nightly build we currently don't run unit-tests before
creating them, we don't create reports, we don't publish other
informations. It would really better to have such things done.
Agree, for which we need to have proper nightly builds.
I don't care about defining what CI is or is not,
No but the GUMP people do!
but I care about results:
Fair enough. But that means you want nightly builds and not CI
I don't need to test the latest velocity, but I really need a
continous build (maybe done each hour or less) that run a full
build/test/report generation/packaging and alert me if something goes wrong.
Ok then we need a CI build internal to the project, Maven and
cruisecontrol work exceedingly well to do this, we have over 20 maven
build on a continuous loop with cruisecontrol here, and it takes just
about zero admin.
Currently if I commit something that builds but break tests no one
notice this: this is not good.
Agreed. I only said that GUMP is not the answer.
d.
