gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <>
Subject Re: [proposal] removing non-ASF leaves from the workspace
Date Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:49:04 GMT
Niclas Hedhman wrote:

> On Monday 01 November 2004 17:00, Leo Simons wrote:
>>Kaffe is very much a leaf not a dependency (I know no ASF project 
>>that can only be built using Kaffe), yet using it for experimental 
>>runs doubles the amount of cpu and disk space used.
> For the record, there are 8 attempts at starting a Gump build every day.
> 1 is Kaffe, 1 is JDK1.5, 1 is 'test' and the others are the official build.
> So, it is not completely accurate to say that the Kaffe build instance doubles 
> CPU/disk resources.

The kaffe build increased our disk usage of 7Gb (about 1/6 of our 
resources) and uses 56 CPU minutes and one 3 hours time slot (about 1/8 
of our resources).

>>While I appreciate the goal of being able to have a truly free java
>>stack and how using Kaffe to build ASF projects helps towards attaining
>>that goal, we're also doing "public service" towards the GNU people in
>>this way.
> Looking at the fact that a Kaffe developer (dalibor) has taken interest in 
> Gump, installed his own instance and trying hard to get things going, is IMHO 
> a good testament to the appreciation of Gump. 

Not only that. The build on Kaffe is a political tool for the java 
community: it's the only way to show that "we have a way out" if Sun 
decided to do something weird licensing-wise with their JVM. This would 
be a *huge* service to the java community at large and to the ASF in the 
first place.

>>If you have a figure showing this saves significant cpu/disk space that
>>we need for other stuff, you'll get (grudgingly) a +1.
> CPU/disk is basically a financial issue. If it is constrained today, we can 
> take temporary measures to exclude projects to make room.

We do not have disk-space issues at the moment, but we are not able to 
get another build in the house.

Before going financial, I would spend some time in making sure that the 
builds could land into another part of the disk. that would reduce disk 
consumption by an order of magnitude.

> Some external dependee projects don't build, and is 'annoying' in the reports. 

This is my main concern: their failures are basically "cry wolf", when a 
real failure happens, nobody notices.

> We can either remove them, or choose a better snapshot from their CVS.

The result would be the same.

> Those are short-term issues, and I think that removal of non-fixed dependee 
> projects are adequate in the short-term.

> What we should start discussing is, how do we scale Gump 'real big'?

Niclas, there are *tons* of things to do in gump before we even start 
attempting that. Please, let's fix our problems first.


View raw message