geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <>
Subject Re: Geronimo build automation status (longish)
Date Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:50:12 GMT
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?

You, or anyone are free to use any tool you like to build Geronimo in  
any fashion you prefer.  I have just found that the other build  
automation systems available do not have enough features to fill all  
of the different build and automated testing needs which we have.

> If we are always going to be able to build Geronimo and test it  
> manually

Yes, of course you can always build Geronimo manually.  Remember the  
different steps for bootstrapping?  Well, AntHill basically just  
automates that, and the handles passing artifacts from build to  
build... but its basically the exact same set of steps which can by  
run by hand.

At no point will AH, or another other automation tool be required to  
build Geronimo (or any of its components)... though we may eventually  
want to use an automation tool to cute nightly/weekly/release builds  
so we have a higher degree of confidence due to a consistent build  

> (without AntHill), then maybe it isn't such a biggie.  Thought I'd  
> raise it for discussion anyway.

I'm not sure what we are discussing actually.


View raw message