geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Sisson <jrsis...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Geronimo build automation status (longish)
Date Tue, 05 Dec 2006 04:49:14 GMT
Jason Dillon wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2006, at 3:45 AM, John Sisson wrote:
>> I had a quick look at the AntHill console and it looked pretty cool.  
>> My initial thought was whether we would be discouraging potential 
>> ISVs to use Geronimo as a basis of their solutions by requiring them 
>> to license AntHill if they want to do their own automated 
>> builds/testing of Geronimo (e.g. so they can build and ship their own 
>> fix releases outside the Apache process).  The AntHill site does not 
>> list prices, so I can't comment on what licensing of AntHill for a 
>> non-open source version of Geronimo would cost.
>
> What?  How did you get the idea that everyone has to use AntHill to 
> build Geronimo?
I didn't have the idea that everyone has to use AntHill to build 
Geronimo.  In my first paragraph I was only talking about automated 
building/testing. 

I just put my ASF hat on and asked myself who is our community?  AFAIK 
our community includes Geronimo users (both individuals and companies), 
Geronimo developers  and software vendors that repackage the code and/or 
provide support ). I don't currently work for a company that builds or 
sells support for Geronimo, so my only motivation here is to ensure 
there is community discussion about this proposed move.

I think my last paragraph was confusing.  When I wrote it, I was 
wondering whether some time in the future, "proper" releases would only 
be built, tested and packaged from automated builds and whether it is 
realistic for someone to do a full build, test, package manually.  Has 
Geronimo's building and testing and release packaging has become complex 
enough that for an ISV to realistically provide support for Geronimo 
they would pretty much need a build and testing automation setup like 
you are suggesting?  If we tell them they have to license AntHill is 
that reasonable?  What does the community think?

For example, if a developer without commit access wanted to do automated 
builds and testing of modifications to Geronimo on their home PC or at 
their company (then is the AntHill license flexible enough to let them 
do that, or is the license limited to Apache hardware or individual 
Apache committers?

Regards,
John


Mime
View raw message