I found this description of Gump and future aims quite interesting. So I'll
withdraw this proposal.
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: "Adam R. B. Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > This is a proposal to begin to end the abuse of the sandbox. (The
sandbox
> > was intended as a temporary 'play
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, this would be the ripple effect if we'd stop building
> jakarta-commons-sandbox projects in Gump:
> The strongest effect stems from commons-io which isn't in the
> sandbox anymore, right?
Adapting to the change, we still get
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you want to stop? Building of the jars or just publishing
> them?
BTW, this would be the ripple effect if we'd stop building
jakarta-commons-sandbox projects in Gump:
Dropping project jakarta-turbine-fulcrum because of Exc
I'm not exactly sure what you are asking for, so please help me to
understand the proposal.
Gump builds stuff and under certain circumstances it publishes the
generated jars. For example, the build system that is currently
sending the nag emails is not publishing the build artifacts at all.
What
> This is a proposal to begin to end the abuse of the sandbox.
I agree with your concern, I disagee with your method.
We are awaiting new hardware. One of the new machines will be dedicated to
GUMP processing (possibly some other related tasks). My understanding, and
there are reasons for this,
> 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)
This is a fascinating approach, and not unlike something that drove me
towards Gump in the first place. I was a heavy user of a comm
Henri Yandell wrote:
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.
Nick's probably going to
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
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
