gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Lenz <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: jakarta-gump/project jakarta-ant.xml jakarta-commons.xml jakarta-taglibs.xml uddi4j.xml xml-crimson.xml xml-xerces.xml
Date Sun, 05 Jan 2003 22:23:47 GMT
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> For projects I care about (and that's a *lot* of projects), I want the 
>> descriptors to *either* be actively maintained or someplace that 
>> bodewig, conor, Stephen, myself, and several others (hi leosimons and 
>> mpoeschl and mvdb and cmlenz!) can update.
> This is not your requirement, it's a Gump need. It's quite evident to all.
> Your way of making Gump runs work is to have a deep knowledge aff all 
> Jakarta codebases and fix them yourself.
> My view is that the Gump descriptors are the base of the daily builds of 
> a project, so that users will be *forced* to maintain most of it, or 
> else the project won't compile.

I agree. For Cactus, we're keeping a pretty damn good eye on the Gump 
results and tend to react to problems very quickly, because we use Gump 
for our nightly builds. I get cold shivers when I see a Cactus build 
soaked in a red background :-)

The vast majority of projects doesn't really on Gump for anything, 
though, which gets very evident in the universe of Maven built projects, 
for example.

I think keeping the Gump descriptor close to the project makes a lot of 
sense. But other situations like the recent mass-optionalizing of jaxp 
are also a concern. Perhaps, just following the guideline that projects 
should be able to maintain their gump descriptor themselves, as long as 
they really *care* about the results, is sufficient here.

For now, I'll leave the Cactus descriptor in jakarta-cactus.

Christopher Lenz
/=/ cmlenz at

View raw message