 | Start a set with this search |
 | Include this search in one of my sets |
 | Exclude this search from one of my sets |
 | Permalink to these results Paste this link in email or IM: |
 | Atom feed for tracking future search results Paste this URL into your reader: |
5 messages in org.apache.james.server-devRe: Two builds [was: Re: Embedding Ja...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Stefano Bagnara | Jun 14, 2008 5:16 am | |
| Norman Maurer | Jun 14, 2008 5:40 am | |
| Robert Burrell Donkin | Jun 15, 2008 5:29 am | |
| Bernd Fondermann | Jun 15, 2008 7:18 am | |
| Stefano Bagnara | Jun 16, 2008 2:59 am |
| Permalink for this message Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Permalink for this thread Paste this link in email or IM: |
| Atom feed for this thread Paste this URL into your reader: |
| Subject: | Re: Two builds [was: Re: Embedding James in a Java application] | Actions... |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Stefano Bagnara (apa...@bago.org) | |
| Date: | Jun 16, 2008 2:59:56 am | |
| List: | org.apache.james.server-dev | |
Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <robe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Norman Maurer <nor...@apache.org> wrote:
Am Samstag, den 14.06.2008, 14:16 +0200 schrieb Stefano Bagnara:
I'm moving to dev because we are OT in the user list.
Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org> wrote:
Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org> wrote:
nodje ha scritto:
hey thanks
I haven't open the documentation yet but thanks to Maven I have been able to compile the whole stuff. spring-integration wouldn't compile on it's own though. Some missing dependencies - or repository issue.
I committed fix to poms yesterday, please try again with the latest version.
We are going long ways to maintain two build tools. I'd suggest we better point our users to the ant build and not turn people away early because they try to use maven and fail.
Bernd
If you look at the thread I already suggested him to use ANT but he decided to use maven anyway. So I preferred to take the opportunity to fix the maven build (we needed this action anyway for our website build).
In my answer I never used the maven word and here is a quote from what I suggested him:
If you checkout the whole sources for trunk and run "ant" on the root it will build also the spring-deployment packages.
Stefano
Yes, I know. I can read ;-) The point is: Having two build tools means, changing one build probably breaks the other one. We did not yet agree to maintain both (except for using maven for docs). The nightly build for example does not check the maven build. But having a broken build is bad for those innocent folks trying to use it.
I committed myself to keep updating the maven build and an almost complete maven configuration is needed if you want to create maven reports for the website.
But I'll stop doing this as no one asked me this. If needed the PMC will find consensus and will ask me to work on that.
No please not stop ....
+1
+1
This was not meant as a criticism towards maintaining a maven build, or an ant build or their maintainers. I thought it was worth pointing out that _two_ builds means doubled work.
Don't you think that by working on both build systems I was really aware of that? ;-)
But I think that it doesn't worth to keep discussing about maven vs ant as we have some people that will veto a move to maven (at least Noel, IIRC) and we have a website requiring the maven poms to be built. So unless someone write an ant based website or some people change his mind we can only keep duplicating our efforts.
It is better to waste time mantaining 2 build systems (as long as we have 2 volounteers doing this) instead of wasting our time in flame wars.
Since there is nobody else than me sceptical abouth the remote repository approach, it doesn't make sense insisting on it.
I'm skeptical too about remote repositories, but I would prefer a single maven build than what we have now. IMHO it is an issue, but not so big to waste our very limited resources mantaining 2 build systems.
I will try to find a solution for myself which works on my machines.
The big issue is the licensing of pom files: our local stage repository hack was almost a solution for offline build, but now we front a much bigger issue with the pom licensing. http://markmail.org/message/neeokjoiemdft6qd http://markmail.org/message/v7qlf57wiu6wsagg http://markmail.org/message/xvhsfpvypipb5nbz
I'd rather not stand on peoples feet here and am open to discuss to completely switch over to maven.
I won't propose such a thing because I don't want to push anything, but I'll +1 a similar proposal.
It's better to have only one maven build than two concurrent builds.
Bernd
I agree but in fact I remember people complaining because we don't have a build.xml in jSPF (that we always and only ever built with maven) so I don't think the PMC will find consensus on moving to maven only for jSieve, postage, mailet products, james-server. All of them have a duplicate build system ATM.
Stefano