I agree that it would reduce the number of things that can go wrong.
Launching processes from Java is certainly not very robust. There's also a few
things we can do better if Hudson speaks the CVS protocol directly (like
tagging the workspace post-facto can be done just from a control information.)
OTOH, there's a prioritization issue. There are a lot of other things that
could be improved, and Hudson will still have to launch processes
even if we internalize cvs and svn, people still have to have Java, Ant, and
Maven installed, etc. Since launching external cvs/svn works good enough for me,
So I guess I'm not too sure if this is a high priority issue, and as such
I'm bit hesitant to spend my time on this.
If there's a particular pain that motivated you to file this bug, I'm very
interested in learning those and implement additional error checks or diagnosis
code to ease those pains.
Or, would you be interested in participating in the development of Hudson
?
I agree that it would reduce the number of things that can go wrong.
Launching processes from Java is certainly not very robust. There's also a few
things we can do better if Hudson speaks the CVS protocol directly (like
tagging the workspace post-facto can be done just from a control information.)
OTOH, there's a prioritization issue. There are a lot of other things that
could be improved, and Hudson will still have to launch processes
even if we internalize cvs and svn, people still have to have Java, Ant, and
Maven installed, etc. Since launching external cvs/svn works good enough for me,
So I guess I'm not too sure if this is a high priority issue, and as such
I'm bit hesitant to spend my time on this.
If there's a particular pain that motivated you to file this bug, I'm very
interested in learning those and implement additional error checks or diagnosis
code to ease those pains.
Or, would you be interested in participating in the development of Hudson
?