On 01/08/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Danny Angus wrote:
>> You have to define what is the "World" that you want to integrate.
>
> In GUMP's case it is the world of Open Source.
The problem is that you define that CI IS GUMP,
Erm no, I'm *ONLY* saying that GUMP is run by the GUMP project, that
it isn't ours and that it has very different goals than the things
we're talking about.
If you read my message down to the bottom *before* you started to
reply to it you would have seen that I said "we need a CI build
internal to the project"
We don't need nightly builds, we need a better CI. I don't care if we
want to keep or remove the current gump, I'm only saying that we need
Continous Integration for the James project:
See above, try *reading* what I said before going off on another rant.
Well it seems to me that this is what the ASF GUMP installation IS, not
what GUMP is. Btw I don't know GUMP enough to be sure of this.
Yes, and AFAIK that is exactly what we are talking about the ASF GUMP
installation, written maintained and operated by the GUMP project with
its own very particular goals.
I'm trying to tell you that It isn't approprate for what you want to do.
Just search the internet for some definition of "Continuous Integration"
I'm sure you probably don't mean to be patronising and rude, I hope
not anyway, there's really no need. I'm a professional, I get paid to
do that stuff, I know what I'm talking about.
In fact you were talking about publishing stuff to the web site, that
isn't really a CI task.
check-out, compile, test, and generate reports are though, and I
agreed that we need a James CI cycle for that.
<snip>
> Agreed. I only said that GUMP is not the answer.
Then you were talking to Noel and I thought you were talking to me.
So why the hell are you continuing to argue about it Stefano???
d.
