gump-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Wade.Stebbi...@Lawson.com
Subject Re: [RT] Gump 3.0 - Database Model
Date Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:55:29 GMT
Leo:


Leo Simons <lsimons@jicarilla.org> wrote on 12/16/2004 02:46:14 AM:

> [...]
> 
> yep, I seem to agree. Let's first implement the proposed setup and 
> optimize for understandability and cleanliness. Gump has a lot of 
> features already. Let's first focus on making the important ones easier 
> to use, then on making it easy to add the ones we want.

I totally agree.  Take the incremental approach in your implementation,
design a bit beyond your current needs (but not too much).  Seems to
remind me of an Einstein quote...  ;)


> I can't really "see through" Wade's setup right now (I'd like to see 
> more, it sounds very interesting :-D), but what I do have is a hunch is 
> addresses quite a few use cases (like redistribution of stuff) which we 
> really don't want to worry about right now.

One significant difference, a differing requirement, between (my) Build
Results system and Gump 3.0 would be that Build Results really consumes
the output of several build systems, some nightly, some some continuous
integration, etc., and we're planning on adding-in CruiseControl as well.
It is the common point where all this information comes together.  There
was just too much legacy stuff (here) to attack all at once, so instead,
this approach seemed the more practical.  And now we are able to leverage
off nof it in different ways (with new build loops, like CruiseControl,
where there's already a "publisher" interface).

wade
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message