commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Phil Steitz" <phil.ste...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [all][poll] How should nigthlies / CI work?
Date Sat, 25 Aug 2007 17:00:03 GMT
On 8/25/07, Noel J. Bergman <noel@devtech.com> wrote:
> Martin Cooper wrote:
>
> > > GUMP builds are deemed non-trusted, since GUMP downloads from
> > > non-ASF sites and includes them in builds without any vetting
> > > of the third party dependencies.
>
> > True, but it's not clear that everything in the public Maven repo
> > should be considered as "vetted" either.
>
> Exactly.  Maven continues to be remiss in delivering on their goal of
> ensuring authenticated packages.  I view anyone who uses the public Maven
> repository as being foolish; competent Maven users have their own private
> repositories.
>
> And, yes, the corollary that GUMP is building from the latest of everything
> is another key reason not to use it for nightly builds.
>

Another reason is that it is a little easier for us to manage
"publication" of the CI artifacts using Continuum / vmbuild.  We can
publish both jars and zips/tarballs to a local maven repo on vmbuild
and set up rsynch to people.apache.org, eliminating some of the
ugliness in the bash setup.

So can I get some feedback on the "what to publish" question?

1. Most recent successful build only
2. A stack of the n (probably = 5) most recent successful builds

I guess if we really want to hold on to the "nightly" idea, we could do

3. Symlink nightly the subset of 2 that correspond to the last n nights.

3. gets us back into bash/cron more deeply.  1. is bash/cron free
(other than rsynch) and 2. requires cron cleanup.  All are simpler
than the current bash script, though.  I am happy help implement any
of these.

Phil

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message