forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Crossley <cross...@indexgeo.com.au>
Subject Re: Forrestbot live!
Date Sun, 08 Dec 2002 02:17:30 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Jeff Turner wrote:
> > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> > ...
> > 
> >>I like this Forrestbot, it's basically a better version of AntGump.
> >>Given the generality of the tool, and given that other times on this 
> >>list it has been decided not to "pollute" our mission of site 
> >>generation, what is the relationship with Gump?
> >>
> >>In other words, would it make sense to you all to make this part of the 
> >>Gump codebase?

I understood that Forrest was to be a companion to Gump,
leaving each to do its own job. Ken, i am not sure what
you mean by "pollute our mission" - it is my understanding
that the automated generation of documentation and its
remote publishing is exactly the mission of Forrest.

So i would need more information about the reasons for
moving forrestbot into Gump. Also we would need to
re-define the role of Forrest.

> > Depends what you mean by 'this'.
> > 
> > Forrestbot itself is is pretty crufty and horrible, because it tries to
> > reuse forrest.build.xml while trying to avoid inconvenient inter-target
> > dependencies.  That causes bugs like the skin being ignored.
> 
> It can/should/will be fixed.
> 
> > The webapp is almost completely detached from forrestbot.  It could drive
> > any command-line tool that operates on a project (ant, maven, centipede,
> > checkstyle?, gump?).  If you can find some other tool to put behind the
> > webapp, then it makes sense to a) remove 'forrestbot' from the webapp
> > title, as Stefano suggests, b) move it somewhere neutral like Alexandria.

What do you people mean by "neutral" ... I thought that the
scope of Apache Forrest is as broad as is our vision and our
dreams. Is not Forrest already "neutral"?

> Ok, then I think we agree.

Steady on - it is the weekend and only two people have
briefly talked about it.

> I don't want it to be moved from here till it will be stable for our 
> uses, it would kill it.
> 
> But eventually, yes, I'm sure it will make sense to move it to the Gump 
> codebase. It's Gump the "neurtal" tool, so it could go there.
> Anyway, we will discuss this when the time is ripe, in the meantime I'll 
> try to see that we keep the bot-webapp as neutral as reasonably possible.
> 
> >>Since the Gump CVS will probably be open to all Apache 
> >>committers, it would not be a commit problem.

Let us sharpen and polish our Forrest tools first.
--David


Mime
View raw message