So .. we started this thread with a proposal to merge the two, and end up with a proposal to further separate them ... ? I'm not sure if I understand.
What we currently have is pretty separate. The QA build can be used separately, running against an external binary River installation, for instance (change property river.home to do that). This has been deliberately foreseen. The only thing the QA build depends upon is common.xml, so you could argue we can remove that dependency. However, duplicate code has been factored out of both build.xml files for a reason too. I'm not sure what we are gaining here ... The build *works* and there are many issues to solve elsewhere? 2010/11/1 Sim IJskes - QCG <[email protected]> > On 01-11-10 01:39, Peter Firmstone wrote: > >> Can we make qa a separate build, and just use jar files from the main >> build as libraries? >> > > I was thinking about a qabuild with an optional setting to build the trunk. > We could easily instead of recompiling the source, copy the binaries from > the last snapshot. Maybe we would have some directory layout stuff to sort. > But it doesn't look difficult to me. > > > My reasoning is that currently we're not testing binary compatibility >> only compile time compatibility (both are important), I've run into >> binary compatibility problems in the past because of the conjoined build. >> > > Sounds reasonable. I'm in. > > Gr. Sim > > -- > QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl > Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397 >
