gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Adam R. B. Jack" <>
Subject Re: [RT] Moving gump forward
Date Mon, 08 Mar 2004 16:53:51 GMT
Leo wrote plenty -- with this just being a snippet:

>                         = The Human Factor =
> What I really like about gump is the principle that we emulate developer
> behaviour as much as possible.

Yup, me too, I liked it when you posted to Avalon-Dev also. Maybe we need a
logo of some crazied gung-ho half-blind half-carpel-tunneled geek who just
can't see a CVS commit message they don't want to tinker with. ;-)

The rest of what you wrote -- made me reconsider my last posting. I'm not
saying that aspects of Gump aren't broken, and we need just promote, I just
think we need to promote for those happily using Gump right now. For those
with simple build systems things really aren't that that bad. I wonder if
that is the majority or not.

That said, Gump is very sensetive to the build system, and I like the IDE
comparison/analogy/proposal. Doing a build is a compile plus a jar (plus
perhaps unit tests/others?). I'd like Stefan's input on if we allowed a
<gump to be like <ant|<maven -- to have Gump just build/archive. We'd loose
the ant regression test suite. Maybe we just keep Gump IDE-like simple, and
say that if you want to 'plug-in' then use <ant. (Yes Leo, I read you blog
entry ;-)

BTW: I suspect that <gump could implemented by writting the ant script on
the fly w/o us having to reinvent the wheel.



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

View raw message