gistfile1.txt

> On Feb 1, 2011, at 6:10 AM, Ed Randall wrote:
> 
> As I see it we have two options.
> 1) Do nothing, continue with the Oracle Hudson branch.
> 2) Put in a bit of effort and go with Jenkins.
>
> The first option will be a lot easier to "sell" to my management.
>
> One problem that we've encountered frequently in the past with Hudson
> is stability after upgrades.  

This will be one of the areas of primary focus for Sonatype and when the rename happens 
today we will begin the process of merging most of our stabilization work back to Hudson. 
This will take a bit of time because we stepped off the train to decide how and who we wanted 
to continue working with. I think this whole situation is unfortunate, but ultimately Kohsuke 
has the right, like everyone else, to do what he feels is right. I honestly do not believe 
what has happened is in the best interest of users, but this is my opinion 
and only time will tell.

If anyone is interested in the work to be done on Hudson the java.net lists should be up, 
the @hudsonci twitter account will be very active, and I'll have a series of blog posts 
about the work Sonatype is planning to contribute, a critique of the current architecture, 
and proposed roadmap. While I'm sure we're not going to be very popular in the short term, 
continuing the Hudson with Oracle is what we feel is best. Our goals and motives have not 
changed since the first time I posted about Sonatype's potential involvement. We care about 
the IP, the provenance of the code, the stability of the core, helping to create a new 
architecture while maintaining backward compatibility, create great Maven integration and 
create a commercial product. We've done a lot of work for enterprise users and we hope to 
share this with the Hudson community as soon as we can.

I believe it is truly regrettable what has happened, but life goes on and I'm sure both 
projects will do well catering to their users.

Jason van Zyl

I smell a buyout.