On Oct 8, 2008, at 4:31 PM, Jason Warner wrote:
We had some suggestions earlier for some alternate means of implementing this (Hudson, Conitnuum, etc...). Now that we've had Jason Dillon provide an overview of what we had in place before, does anyone have thoughts on what we should go with? I'm thinking we should stick with the AHP based solution. It will need to be updated most likely, but it's been tried and tested and shown to meet our needs. I'm wondering, though, why we stopped using it before. Was there a specific issue we're going to have to deal with again?
IIRC, the overwhelming reason we stopped using it before was because of hosting issues -- spotty networking, hardware failures, poor colo support, etc. We shouldn't have any of these problems, now. If we do run into problems, they should now be fixable. I have no reason to favor Hudson/Continuum over AHP. So, if we can get AHP running easily, I'm all for it. There's only one potential issue, that I'm aware of.
We previously had an Open Source License issued for our use of Anthill. Here's some of the old discussion -- http://www.nabble.com/Geronimo-build-automation-status-(longish)-tt7649902.html#a7649902
Although the board was aware of our usage of AntHill, since we weren't running AntHill on ASF hardware, I'm not sure the license was fully vetted by Infra. I don't see any issues, but I'll want to run this by Infra.
Jason D, will the existing license cover the version of AntHill that we'll want to use? I'll run the license by Infra and will also describe the issue for review by the Board, in our quarterly report.
IMO, I'd proceed with the assumption that we'll be using AHP. Just don't install it on Apache hardware, yet.
--kevan
