commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Martin Cooper" <>
Subject Re: [all][poll] How should nigthlies / CI work?
Date Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:05:29 GMT
On 8/24/07, Phil Steitz <> wrote:
> Continuum works differently from the old bash script in a couple of
> ways.  First, it only executes builds when svn changes have happened.
> So if there are no changes, there will be no "nightly build" for a
> component.  It also looks for changes and executes builds hourly, so
> there can be multiple builds in a given day.

Given that, isn't Gump producing something closer to what we want for
nightly builds than Continuum? Why not use the Gump output for the

Martin Cooper

We need to decide what we jars we publish to the snapshot repo on
> and what zips/tarballs we make available on the
> "nightlies" page.  Seems to me we have two choices.
> 1. Publish only the latest successful build (with build number and
> date in the metadata but only commons-foo-x.y.z-SNAPSHOT.jar as the
> jar name) and do the same with the zips/tarballs (only one is
> available at a given time)
> 2. Publish jars with uniqueVersion=true, so they are each named
> differently and keep a fixed number of them around, say 5.  Similarly
> for the zips/tarballs.
> I think 1 is simpler and will be easier to maintain (no cron cleanups
> necessary), but we could get 2. to work if others feel strongly that
> we should be maintaining a stack of successful builds.  Thoughts?
> To get the zips/tarballs to work, components need to get m2 assemblies
> defined for all of the components.
> Phil
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message