[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openejb-development
Subject:    Re: Running continuous OpenEJB builds
From:       "Daniel S. Haischt" <daniel.haischt () googlemail ! com>
Date:       2008-02-07 15:24:48
Message-ID: eff8c4060802070724l4b30a449j7f42b0561c9447f9 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

My apologies if I was kind of brusque on this subject!

I did setup an initial continuum project for OpenEJB but the initial
build faild and I did not have the time last night to figure out
what's going on.

So anybody is welcome to have a look at the continuum setup.

Cheers

On Feb 7, 2008 12:02 PM, Jonathan Gallimore
<jonathan.gallimore@gmail.com> wrote:
> My apologies for missing the other thread - I think it makes sense to go
> this route instead.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> Daniel S. Haischt wrote:
> > Hi Jonathan,
> >
> > my point here is that we should be a) promoting Apache stuff by using it
> > (here. continuum) and b) use the machines from the infrastructure folks
> > cause they are doing proper backups and so forth. basically anything
> > that comes along with providing hosting services.
> >
> > Just have a look at the following site:
> >
> >  -> http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/groupSummary.action
> >
> > For some reason there is already an OpenEJB entry in continuum. So my
> > guess would be that we just should start to use it :)
> >
> > Just trying to prevent duplicated efforts.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Daniel S. Haischt
> >
> > Jonathan Gallimore wrote:
> >> No offense taken :)
> >>
> >> I don't know if there's already Continuum setup somewhere - I'm
> >> guessing Prasad used to run Continuum or something similar to run
> >> continuous builds on his own hardware and net connection, and is now
> >> no longer able to do this.
> >>
> >> So, if there isn't any central infrastructure to do this, I'm willing
> >> to to set this up on my box, and publish the build artifacts
> >> somewhere. The server itself is pretty basic, 2.4GHz, 512MB RAM, but
> >> it does have a pretty good net connection.
> >>
>
>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]