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 Tue, 05 Dec 2006 06:12:33 GMT
On Dec 4, 2006, at 8:49 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>> 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.

You (or whoever) should, at any point, be able to run the build steps  
by hand to produce the same end result... always assuming the correct  
JDK, probably a non-windows environment, and a clean mvn repo with  
decent network connectivity.  Windows builds obviously take a bit  
more care, but should also be able to run in the same manner with  
some specific restrictions.

> 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.

Nope, manual builds should always work assuming you have your  
environment setup up correctly.  The automation system simply ensure  
that environment.

> 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?

Yes, IMO the build for Geronimo, to ensure that everything is in  
order, built from know components has gotten quite complex and any  
ISV building in any automated fashion would want a similar setup to  
ensure that everything is built using the proper dependencies.  But  
really any moderate to complex project would want that.  And from  
what I can tell none of the open solutions allow you to do that with  
any degree of easy or flexibility.

> If we tell them they have to license AntHill is that reasonable?   
> What does the community think?

I don't think we would ever tell anyone they *have* to use anything.   
Its like, we use JIRA to manage our bugs... and then telling vendors  
that if they use G, they have to use JIRA to manage their bugs...  
which would never happen.

> 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?

Such a developer could use AntHill if they wanted... or CC, or  
QuickBuild, or ParaBuild, etc...

Why does it matter?

Basically, G does not deliver any automated build functionality to  
its users... just as it does not deliver any issue tracking or web  
content authoring tools, all of which are critical to the success of  
the project.

It seems like you are lumping them up with our deliverables.  I think  
they are completely unrelated.


View raw message