Re: [GUMP] Build Failure - krysalis-version

Adam Jack wrote:

>This isn't intended as "whining", it is more for discussion:
>
>I know centipede is a Krysalis project also, but it is frustrating that we
>can't get nightly gumps of other Krysalis projects because the underpinning
>build tool (centipede) is failing. Ought the various gumps stop trying to
>build it and just install it locally as a package? [That would be a
>shame...]
>  
>
I think the Official Gump should stay as it is,  but centipede could 
provide an alternative gump where centipede is always built and not 
dependent on any project.

It would be nice if we could get gump running on sourceforge,  but I 
have not had any luck yet.

>Moreover, given how centipede is key to so many builds, ought it not be a
>Krysalis priority to fix problems with it when it fails to gump? I don't
>know who has the time/skills to do this. Is there an alternate solution? For
>example, perhaps centipede needs to be broken up into smaller projects, so
>if one cent breaks the other do not. Is this too "expensive" on resources or
>effort? Ought we have a project per cent?
>
>Also, one behaviour that is disappointing is that when the
>krysalis-cents-bootstrap project fails that the old ("beta3"?) cents are
>left in play, and that subsequent projects get "obscure and misleading
>errors" rather than failure of pre-requisites.
>

The offical gump does not use krysalis-cents-bootstrap, instead each 
cent is it's own project.  
Take a look at  
http://cvs.apache.org/builds/gump/latest/module_krysalis-template-smoke-test.html

> Is there a way to avoid this?
>  
>

On solution is to do a beta 5 release (including a release of all cents)

>Thanks in advance. Again -- for discussion purposes only...
>


>
>regards
>
>Adam
>  
>
------------------------------------------




-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf