gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <>
Subject Re: Nightly builds, Gump, Maven and repository issues.
Date Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:41:27 GMT

On 30 Jan 2004, at 11:17, Adam R. B. Jack wrote:

> Mark wrote:
>> I wanted to to attempt to coordinate with Gump folks concerning 
>> nightly
>> builds, the new maven repository on the apache server and other
>> interesting tidbits.
> I needed some time to mull this over before I responded. I see you 
> have good
> intentions to try to pull a bunch of things together, and I respect 
> that.
> That said, I don't think they should fit.
> Every time I try to match Gump with nightly builds, I come up against a
> philosophical problem which Stefan explained. Gump isn't doing nightly
> builds (against a stable base), it is doing nightly integration test 
> builds
> (an unstable 'box of chocolates' :).

Yes. Many people believe that Gump is like Tinderbox but it's not. The 
fact that it generates jars and javadocs is a *byproduct* of it.

At the same time, I think it would be useful to have both things: each 
module should be built twice, the first time with "latest-greatest 
dependencies" and the second time with "tested dependencies".

This might require some thinking but it would definately solve the 
issues and yield two different signals: one for the box of chocolates, 
one for the nightly built process.

I think they are both important.

And I have the gut feeling that in order to have a meaningful FoG 
number, you need a history of both information. [but I have to think 
about that more because it seems to be a pretty complex 
graph-theory-related issue]


View raw message