Re: [MO-java-dev] compilation problem for mockobjects

[Nat P. <nat...@b1...>]

On Wed, 2004-02-04 at 13:05, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> The email based nagging system has been Gump's traditional approach
> and it has done an outstanding job in many cases.  I agree that it is
> plain annoying if it comes unwanted.
> 
> Maybe we can improve the nagging part in the Python implementation to
> be configurable on a project level.  Some projects may want a nightly
> report even on successful builds as confirmation, others may only want
> to get notified on status changes (as you describe it).

I think the issue in this case is that some of the team added the
project to gump and others did not know about it.  So really, it's an
internal communication and process issue that has brought to light the
need to agree on how we use the HEAD branch.  Which is a good thing.

Another issue is how does Gump handle acceptance tests?  A convention we
are using on jmock is to allow failing acceptance tests into CVS to show
what needs to be done long-term.  The library itself and the unit tests
will always compile and the unit tests will always pass, but the
acceptance tests can fail or even not compile at all.

Cheers,
	Nat.