Okay, so you just mean no gump for sandbox [deletes long rant about importance of nightly builds]. Summary of it is, that I think gump and the apache repository need to be hooked together so each project is updating the SNAPSHOT whenever it changes.
Last Lang SNAPSHOT was the end of January. +1 to kill gump builds for sandbox projects. In fact, +1 to kill it for all unreleased projects [sorry dIon/Phil/Mark]. Hen On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Nick Chalko wrote: > As long as project don't decide to use gump anyways and cheat relying on > a version sandbox projects jar checked into CVS then I think this is a > reasonable thing. > Stephen Colebourne wrote: > > >This is a proposal to begin to end the abuse of the sandbox. (The sandbox > >was intended as a temporary 'play area' for new ideas, not a long term > >project home) > > > >Gump is the key mechanism used in apache to ensure that everything keeps > >building. By removing the sandbox projects, we should encourage other > >projects not to depend on the sandbox unless they are willing to help push > >the project to a release. > > > >Normally decisions such as this have been left to each project, but IMHO its > >time for commons-dev to take control. Any views? Do we vote or just do it? > > > >Stephen > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
