gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Adam R. B. Jack" <>
Subject Re: feature request: top critical failures
Date Sun, 07 Mar 2004 02:55:46 GMT
> Actually in the last one or two months, I have been "giving a damn" as
> you said.

I suspect Stefano meant more from the owners, not all the Gumpmeisters 'cos
we are a caring bunch. ;-) We've noticed all you've achieved ... (hmm, we
need a FOG Factor for a count of projects & dependencies that folks have
returned to the fold. ;-)

> I will try to suggest a new build.xml to the avalon team for this
> component. May be it could be built with Maven, but I do not know Maven,
> and
> I do not know either the interface between gump and Maven.

The way is it (was) meant to work is on types "maven ant" (I think this is
the goal, to get a build.xml) and "maven gump" to get a Gump descriptor.
These then get check in, and the rest you know. I beleive Stefan knows of a
reason why some <mkdir entries often need to get things to work, but that
can be step two.

BTW: We do now have Gump (at least Gumpy) building via Maven, and I'd like
to see it tried on something real. This occurs when <maven is used instead
of <ant in the descriptor.

Unfortunately if one sets a dependency on <maven -- not actually necessary
right now, one doesn't get a build:

> I am also wondering whether we should not define some gump best
> practices for ant build files of individual projects :

Not a bad idea, we could add it to this (intended to be Gump best

> *A good build file (for gump) is a simple build file*

You know,  I so agree! All Gump ought need is compile & jar -- and it if
wouldn't destroy Stefan's ant regression testing tool I'd be tempted to have
Gump write the build script on the fly, from the information in the
metadata, and forget any complex build tools.



To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message