Hi,
lately we're a bit short on space on the main Hudson server:
http://hudson.opengeo.org/hudson/
It would be useful to remove a bit of the older builds, like
the GeoTools 2.5.x one and the GeoServer 1.7.x ones.
I think they are not being useful anymore, anyways, no?
Cheers
Andrea
--
Andrea Aime
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.
+1
-------------------------------------------------------
Ing. Simone Giannecchini
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Founder - Software Engineer
Via Carignoni 51
55041 Camaiore (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584983027
fax: +39 0584983027
mob: +39 333 8128928
http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/simonegiannecchini
http://twitter.com/simogeo
-------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Andrea Aime <aaime@anonymised.com> wrote:
Hi,
lately we're a bit short on space on the main Hudson server:
http://hudson.opengeo.org/hudson/It would be useful to remove a bit of the older builds, like
the GeoTools 2.5.x one and the GeoServer 1.7.x ones.I think they are not being useful anymore, anyways, no?
Cheers
Andrea--
Andrea Aime
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
For my parts this would be ok. I will not do any backports to these versions.
Quoting Andrea Aime <aaime@anonymised.com>:
Hi,
lately we're a bit short on space on the main Hudson server:
http://hudson.opengeo.org/hudson/It would be useful to remove a bit of the older builds, like
the GeoTools 2.5.x one and the GeoServer 1.7.x ones.I think they are not being useful anymore, anyways, no?
Cheers
Andrea--
Andrea Aime
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Sounds good to me.
On 10-05-11 4:16 AM, Andrea Aime wrote:
Hi,
lately we're a bit short on space on the main Hudson server:
http://hudson.opengeo.org/hudson/It would be useful to remove a bit of the older builds, like
the GeoTools 2.5.x one and the GeoServer 1.7.x ones.I think they are not being useful anymore, anyways, no?
Cheers
Andrea
--
Justin Deoliveira
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.
Michael Bedward ha scritto:
On 11 May 2010 20:16, Andrea Aime wrote:
I think they are not being useful anymore, anyways, no?
I guess it would be a good idea to check on the user list to see if
anyone there will be affected.
I'd rather not do that. Reasoning: we need that space to keep the
build server stable, making sure I don't step of the toes of
another developer is important, user base, well, they should be
using releases (sorry, we don't have resources to do everything
for everybody).
Cheers
Andrea
--
Andrea Aime
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.
Andrea Aime ha scritto:
Hi,
lately we're a bit short on space on the main Hudson server:
http://hudson.opengeo.org/hudson/It would be useful to remove a bit of the older builds, like
the GeoTools 2.5.x one and the GeoServer 1.7.x ones.I think they are not being useful anymore, anyways, no?
Ok, removed the builds. That freed 1.6GB of hard drive space,
which is quite a bit given we only had 3GB left.
Hopefully that will keep the builds server going for another
while.
Cheers
Andrea
--
Andrea Aime
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.
On 12/05/10 01:25, Andrea Aime wrote:
Andrea Aime ha scritto:
Hi,
lately we're a bit short on space on the main Hudson server:
http://hudson.opengeo.org/hudson/It would be useful to remove a bit of the older builds, like
the GeoTools 2.5.x one and the GeoServer 1.7.x ones.I think they are not being useful anymore, anyways, no?
Ok, removed the builds. That freed 1.6GB of hard drive space,
which is quite a bit given we only had 3GB left.
Hopefully that will keep the builds server going for another
while.
Now that you've done it, I'd like to say yes, do it! 
Seven hours between proposal and completion is a bit short, when it is overnight for some of us. In this case, it was a good call. Furthermore, Hudson is not a community resource but something opengeo kindly provides us. I'm not really complaining, just making a process observation, in the hope that, in the future, if you want my input you will give me a chance to provide it.
--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <Ben.Caradoc-Davies@anonymised.com>
Software Engineering Team Leader
CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering
Australian Resources Research Centre
Ben Caradoc-Davies ha scritto:
Ok, removed the builds. That freed 1.6GB of hard drive space,
which is quite a bit given we only had 3GB left.
Hopefully that will keep the builds server going for another
while.Now that you've done it, I'd like to say yes, do it!
Seven hours between proposal and completion is a bit short, when it is overnight for some of us. In this case, it was a good call. Furthermore, Hudson is not a community resource but something opengeo kindly provides us. I'm not really complaining, just making a process observation, in the hope that, in the future, if you want my input you will give me a chance to provide it.
Yeah, sorry. For this specific case I knew the app-schema crew did not
have any stake in 1.7.x/2.5.x (afaik you jumped straight from a 1.6.x branch to 2.0.x, correct?) so I just went ahead
Cheers
Andrea
--
Andrea Aime
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.
On 12/05/10 14:21, Andrea Aime wrote:
Yeah, sorry. For this specific case I knew the app-schema crew did not
have any stake in 1.7.x/2.5.x (afaik you jumped straight from a 1.6.x
branch to 2.0.x, correct?) so I just went ahead
Yes, you are quite right: app-schema jumped from 1.6.x/2.4.x straight to trunk, and never backported to 1.7.x/2.5.x. There were a few people in my group using 1.7.x for non-app-schema development, including coverage stuff, but they are all migrated or exiled. I fully support the action you took.
It is not a problem. I was just slightly amused to see both the request for feedback and the corresponding action between dinner and breakfast, and I wondered "what if it was something I didn't want?" More of a cautionary learning than a complaint.
Kind regards,
--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <Ben.Caradoc-Davies@anonymised.com>
Software Engineering Team Leader
CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering
Australian Resources Research Centre