geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Continuous TCK Testing
Date Thu, 09 Oct 2008 03:56:26 GMT

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.

--kevan

Mime
View raw message