On 8/25/07, Dion Gillard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/26/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/24/07, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > > nightlies? > > On the other hand, why produce a new nightly if nothing's changed? > <snip/>
I think the net of it is that we need to flesh out what purposes Gump and Continuum are serving, and what purposes they should continue to serve. For better or worse, Gump may tend to more closely match our bash nightlies. -Rahul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
