geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <jason.dil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Continuous TCK Testing
Date Fri, 17 Oct 2008 05:23:25 GMT
Yup, might need to resurrect that stuff if we plan on using it again.

--jason


On Oct 16, 2008, at 10:39 PM, Jason Warner wrote:

> Whoops... just realized that this was actually removed and I was  
> looking at a stickied revision of viewVC.  Nevermind.
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Jason Warner <jaw981@gmail.com>  
> wrote:
> While we wait to hear back in regards to the license, I'm going to  
> update the maven used in build-support.  The server now requires  
> 2.0.9 and the version currently used by build support is 2.0.5.  I  
> suppose we'll need to update ant, as well.  What version of ant  
> should we be using?  1.7.1?
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Kevan Miller  
> <kevan.miller@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 8, 2008, at 11:56 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 8, 2008, at 4:31 PM, Jason Warner wrote:
>>
>>> We had some suggestions earlier for some alternate means of  
>>> implementing this (Hudson, Conitnuum, etc...).  Now that we've had  
>>> Jason Dillon provide an overview of what we had in place before,  
>>> does anyone have thoughts on what we should go with?  I'm thinking  
>>> we should stick with the AHP based solution.  It will need to be  
>>> updated most likely, but it's been tried and tested and shown to  
>>> meet our needs.  I'm wondering, though, why we stopped using it  
>>> before.  Was there a specific issue we're going to have to deal  
>>> with again?
>>
>> IIRC, the overwhelming reason we stopped using it before was  
>> because of hosting issues -- spotty networking, hardware failures,  
>> poor colo support, etc. We shouldn't have any of these problems,  
>> now. If we do run into problems, they should now be fixable. I have  
>> no reason to favor Hudson/Continuum over AHP. So, if we can get AHP  
>> running easily, I'm all for it. There's only one potential issue,  
>> that I'm aware of.
>>
>> We previously had an Open Source License issued for our use of  
>> Anthill. Here's some of the old discussion -- http://www.nabble.com/Geronimo-build-automation-status-(longish)-tt7649902.html#a7649902
>>
>> Although the board was aware of our usage of AntHill, since we  
>> weren't running AntHill on ASF hardware, I'm not sure the license  
>> was fully vetted by Infra. I don't see any issues, but I'll want to  
>> run this by Infra.
>>
>> Jason D, will the existing license cover the version of AntHill  
>> that we'll want to use? I'll run the license by Infra and will also  
>> describe the issue for review by the Board, in our quarterly report.
>>
>> IMO, I'd proceed with the assumption that we'll be using AHP. Just  
>> don't install it on Apache hardware, yet.
>
> I've requested a new license from Anthill. Will let you know when I  
> get it.
>
> --kevan
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> ~Jason Warner
>
>
>
> -- 
> ~Jason Warner


Mime
View raw message