Return-Path: <snicoll@kiala.com>
list-help: <mailto:cactus-user-help@jakarta.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:cactus-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:cactus-user@jakarta.apache.org>
List-Id: <cactus-user.jakarta.apache.org>
Mailing-List: contact cactus-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list cactus-user@jakarta.apache.org
Received: (qmail 99497 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2004 10:47:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO hercules.kiala.com) (62.102.3.152)
  by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Mar 2004 10:47:22 -0000
Received: from sandokan.lan.kiala.com (sandokan.lan.kiala.com
 [192.168.10.246])
	by hercules.kiala.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i2JAlUR18810
	for <cactus-user@jakarta.apache.org>; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:47:30 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: 
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE=3A_R=E9f=2E_=3A_Cactus_integration_test_with_a_producti?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?on=27s_EAR?=
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:47:24 +0100
Message-ID: <A9B8D4D973E2AC4587A03F02130005AE679D03@sandokan.lan.kiala.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: 
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9f=2E_=3A_Cactus_integration_test_with_a_production=27s?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?_EAR?=
Thread-Index: AcQNnyyk0r/fXwpYTgix+amiOWUc0gAAA4Sg
From: "Stephane Nicoll" <snicoll@kiala.com>
To: "Cactus Users List" <cactus-user@jakarta.apache.org>
X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N


-----Original Message-----
From: Vincent Massol [mailto:vmassol@pivolis.com]=20
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 11:44 AM
To: 'Cactus Users List'
Subject: RE: R=E9f. : Cactus integration test with a production's EAR

<OT>
Why don't you build everything from CVS HEAD? That would ensure that =
changes
are all compatible at any single point in time. I'm curious to =
understand why
you don't want to be doing continuous integration (I've always found it =
to be
very useful in my projects). If people are working on fixing bugs of a
previous release, they'll work on a branch. Same if people are working =
on
experimental features. But the main development for the current release =
would
be on HEAD. What's wrong with this? :-) </OT>

Simply because some modules might have been updated to version 2.0 with =
new
functionnalities that won't be included in the next version of the
application. So other modules still relies on 1.4.X for instance. The =
CVS
head is stable but it might not be the state we want for all modules.

Regards,

St=E9phane