james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: Two builds [was: Re: Embedding James in a Java application]
Date Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:00:19 GMT
Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Norman Maurer <norman@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 <apache@bago.org>
>>>>>> Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> better point our users to the ant build and not turn people away
>>>>>>> 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.

> 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.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

View raw message