forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nicola Ken Barozzi <>
Subject Re: Forrestbot live!
Date Sun, 08 Dec 2002 10:02:15 GMT

David Crossley wrote:
> 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.

Forrestbot is/can be made into a generic build system like 
criusecontrol. Imagine that you can tell that bot to compile java code 
instead of using forrest, and you have something that is much more 
generic and has no relation with Forrest.

> Also we would need to
> re-define the role of Forrest.

I don't think so. SoC. As we decided not to put code documentation 
generation stuff here, but try to make Alexandria nuture them, we should 
do the same with build system.

Forrestbot is a build system, with programmable phases.

>>>Depends what you mean by 'this'.
>>>Forrestbot itself is is pretty crufty and horrible, because it tries to
>>>reuse 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"?

Not really. We decided not to keep code documentation stuff here, and 
that would be much nearer the publishing goals than a build systen.

>>Ok, then I think we agree.
> Steady on - it is the weekend and only two people have
> briefly talked about it.

I mean I think I agree with Steven.

>>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.

Yup, exactly what I intend to do.

"I don't want it to be moved from here till it will be stable for our
uses, it would kill it."

Nicola Ken Barozzi         
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)

View raw message