Leo wrote plenty -- with this just being a snippet: > = The Human Factor = > > What I really like about gump is the principle that we emulate developer > behaviour as much as possible. >
Yup, me too, I liked it when you posted to Avalon-Dev also. Maybe we need a logo of some crazied gung-ho half-blind half-carpel-tunneled geek who just can't see a CVS commit message they don't want to tinker with. ;-) The rest of what you wrote -- made me reconsider my last posting. I'm not saying that aspects of Gump aren't broken, and we need just promote, I just think we need to promote for those happily using Gump right now. For those with simple build systems things really aren't that that bad. I wonder if that is the majority or not. That said, Gump is very sensetive to the build system, and I like the IDE comparison/analogy/proposal. Doing a build is a compile plus a jar (plus perhaps unit tests/others?). I'd like Stefan's input on if we allowed a <gump to be like <ant|<maven -- to have Gump just build/archive. We'd loose the ant regression test suite. Maybe we just keep Gump IDE-like simple, and say that if you want to 'plug-in' then use <ant. (Yes Leo, I read you blog entry ;-) BTW: I suspect that <gump could implemented by writting the ant script on the fly w/o us having to reinvent the wheel. regards, Adam --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
