Print

Oracle responds to Hudson/Jenkins fork



Alex Handy
Email
February 22, 2011 —  (Page 1 of 4)
Kohsuke Kawaguchi created the continuous-integration tool Hudson in order to simplify agile Java development processes. Kawaguchi ran the project as he saw fit, moving forward quickly and pushing out quick, new releases. This helped to propel Hudson to an over 80% share of the continuous integration market for Java, according to a survey by Sonatype released earlier this year.

But while Kawaguchi moved forward without looking back, Oracle was growing more and more concerned about how the project was led.

Ted Farrell, Oracle senior vice president and chief architect, wrote in a statement to SD Times that “Oracle had an issue with how decisions about Hudson (code changes, committers, etc.) were being made. We were working those through the community with [Kawaguchi]. More recently, there were also concerns around how changes to the Hudson infrastructure were being made. As an example, on Nov. 22, Kawaguchi moved both the mailing lists and source repository to new infrastructure without consulting anyone, including Winston Prakash of Oracle, who was co-owner of the Hudson project.”

The real issue, wrote Farrell, was that Kawaguchi moved the project without input from the community, highlighting Hudson's capricious nature.

“After several unanswered e-mails to [Kawaguchi] to discuss these changes, I posted to the community mailing list asking for the moves to stop until we could discuss the best way to implement the changes,” wrote Farrell. “We had heard multiple complaints from users and developers about the unpredictability of the Hudson project. We were trying to address those concerns. A slanted blog post misrepresented a lot of these points and incited a lot of confusion around the event. We never forbid moving to GitHub. In fact, I stated we were in favor of doing that, but wanted some time to think through the ramifications to everyone."

Oracle decided it would exert its ownership of the Hudson name and try to force some more structure into the project. Kawaguchi did not take Oracle's pressure lightly. At the end of January, he officially forked Hudson, calling the fork "Jenkins" (in keeping with the project's butler theme). But that was not the end of the drama.



Related Search Term(s): Hudson, Oracle, Java,

Pages 1 2 3 4 


Share this link: http://sdt.bz/35290
 


Comments


02/18/2011 09:11:32 AM EST

It sounds like a classic turf war to me. Some middle manager at Oracle got the project and didn't like the fact someone else was really running it. Hopefully losing the project for the company will be a lesson learned and maybe a manager canned.

United StatesJOTN


02/20/2011 10:33:01 PM EST

"Fork" implies that it's an attempt to diverge from the development path, but the whole team moved over to Jenkins. It's only being renamed out of caution over the trademark, just like Mambo renamed to Joomla. If any project is changing its prior direction, it's on the Hudson side with all the new leadership Oracle is putting in place.

United StatesIt's not a fork


02/22/2011 02:54:17 PM EST

There are a bunch of things in this piece that are, shall we say, not entirely accurate, but I just want to specifically refute one of them. Kohsuke never called himself "the Benevolent Dictator of Hudson". In discussions with Ted and others, I referred to Kohsuke's role in the Hudson project to that point in time as having basically been the benevolent dictator role, equivalent to Linus in Linux, Guido in Python, etc. I was simply describing the situation, not making a value judgement one way or another. Kohsuke would never describe himself in those terms, as anyone who knows him would attest.

United StatesAndrew Bayer


02/22/2011 03:49:25 PM EST

Ted seems intent on rewriting history and drawing even more attention to oracle's wacky behavior. A bunch of threads here: http://www.itworld.com/comments/137722. Bob Bickel, board member at CloudBees and friend of KK.

United StatesBob Bickel


02/22/2011 04:05:40 PM EST

It should be noted that van Zyl pitched for the Hudson project move to GitHub shortly after the Jenkins rename/fork. It was approved by Winston Prakash (the only other developer of Hudson; see https://github.com/hudson member list) and they went ahead with the move after a scant 2 day "discussion" involving a grand total of 7 people commenting--half of whom work for Oracle! So much for community involvement... I hope you're getting paid for the FUD you and Oracle are spreading.

United StatesJesse Farinacci


02/22/2011 05:45:14 PM EST

Hey Andrew, > Kohsuke never called himself "the Benevolent Dictator of Hudson". Actually, he did. It use to be on his website (you can still see it in certain cached versions) and email footers, and it is still on his linkedIn page here: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=2648649 and in a few other places. Bob, > Ted seems intent on rewriting history I am only trying to correct a lot of mis-information that was, and still is being thrown about. At the end of the day, I think this is a disagreement about how an open source project should be run. I think we all agree that there are different ways of doing it (that is what I think this article is trying to say). I'm not sure why we can't agree on that and focus on making the two projects the best they can be. Alex had written an early article about the Jenkins side and then asked us for our side of things which resulted in this article. We didn't jump in on the first article and start insulting you. I'm not sure why you feel the need to do that here.

United StatesTed Farrell


02/22/2011 09:03:13 PM EST

The following statement is unbelievable given that Hudson/Jenkins is the leading CI server: "There was no test suite run against any of these releases so quality was in question, and often an issue for users picking up a new release." Oh, really? I dug for a few minutes and found this: http://ci.jenkins-ci.org/view/Jenkins%20core/job/jenkins_main_trunk/lastCompletedBuild/testReport/ That, ahem, untruth casts big doubts on the Oracle side of story from my, neutral, point of view.

United StatesDK


02/23/2011 10:04:48 PM EST

DK: I went to that link and only found a single test for a single class. Wouldn't that support Oracle's claims?

United StatesJOTN


02/28/2011 04:16:29 PM EST

The basic question for the "Hudson" trademark managers at Oracle is this: Who are you going to hire to *do* *the* *coding*? AFAIK, the entire previous development team has left: you have no manpower. Are you just going to throw random employees at the codebase? Are you going to try and re-hire some of the existing team? How are you going to solve this problem? Claiming that a "project" exists when it appears that all you've got is a trademark and hardware is, to put it kindly, optimistic. It would have been great to see an article that dug into the issue of manpower to work on Oracle's trademarked product, and pressed Ted and the other Oracle mangers on the topic. Sadly, this doesn't appear to have been such an article.

United StatesJesse Weinstein


02/28/2011 08:33:12 PM EST

I'm honestly confused by this whole thing. I know Hudson. I know Oracle. I was happy with Hudson at Oracle. It had warts, but what software doesn't. What bothers me is that now there is some company called Cloudbees that is involved. I had never heard of them before this whole dust up. Now they seem to be all over it. I checked their site, and they apparently offer Jenkins in the cloud? I used to use a service like that for my ruby stuff. It was called RunCodeRun. They couldn't keep their doors open - http://blog.runcoderun.com. Now the same type of company is running Jenkins? :(

United StatesJD


03/01/2011 02:14:26 AM EST

Pax people, pax. Can't we all just get along with one another??

United Nations


03/06/2011 12:54:05 AM EST

"A new version was posted almost every week. There was no issue tracking or detailed notes that would allow for users to see what changed (bug vs. feature)..." You mean like this? http://jenkins-ci.org/changelog That sort of changelog has been around for over a year.

United StatesChangelogs


03/10/2011 08:13:02 AM EST

We did some testing of Hudson, as we were looking to replace BuildForge. I also had some concerns on the update policy, as it seemed that updates came out daily, and sometimes multiple updates in a day. I think there were 20 updates in 30 days (this was about 1 year ago). I'll probably re-evaluate both of these products again.

United StatesDon Desjardin


03/27/2011 09:16:18 PM EST

I just want to note how awkward all of you sound complaining about the quick pace of development and new releases. It's a "Continuous Integration" server. That's pretty much the point. Note the "continuous" part. Get it? Good.

United StatesJohnny


close
NEXT ARTICLE
News Briefs: November 15, 2008
Metaforic comes out with a new security product for monitoring networks, ICEsoft and ILOG announce that they are merging their technologies for later releases, and Urbancode adds pre-flight builds for testers to AnthillPro Read More...
 
 
 




News on Monday  more>>
Android Developer News  more>>
SharePoint Tech Report  more>>
Big Data TechReport  more>>

   
 
 

 


Download Current Issue
APRIL 2014 PDF ISSUE

Need Back Issues?
DOWNLOAD HERE

Want to subscribe?