gora-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Enis Söztutar <enis....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Proposal to change the build tool and project structure
Date Thu, 13 Oct 2011 06:21:23 GMT
Hi,

That sounds like a plan. I have also worked with modular projects in Maven
and did not
notice major problems. So if you are confident that we can maintain minimal
headache
then we should keep the current structure of the modules.

Thanks,
Enis

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) <
chris.a.mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:

> Hey Enis,
>
> Honestly, I wasn't going to push it, but I've felt the same way since
> pushing to roll 0.1.1 and actually getting Maven working. I'm super
> comfortable with Maven and though I can fumble around and get
> Ant + Ivy working it's certainly not my wheelhouse.
>
> My literal plan was to push forward on the GORA issue I filed to
> roll forward the Maven poms from 0.1.1 (that mostly work), get them
> fully working with 0.2-incubating, and then volunteer my time
> to continue to maintain the poms.
>
> I'm +0 on collapsing into a single project -- Maven is really fine
> with multi-module projects and it's quite a bit easier in my mind
> to do that. I have no worries about maintaining the current module-based
> structure for Gora so long as we're using Maven.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> On Oct 12, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Enis Söztutar wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I know we have discussed this previously in Maven vs Ant+Ivy flame wars,
> and
> > the consensus was staying with Ant+Ivy, and keeping Maven artifacts.
> > However, looking at the recent list of issues, and dev threads, I seems
> > unfortunate that because of the build system that we have right now,
> builds,
> > tests, nightlies and releases are becoming a major problem. And it is sad
> > that most of the dev effort goes to the build system instead of improving
> > core Gora.
> >
> > Initially, I had setup the project organization to be modular with and
> > Ant+Ivy setup, which I guess, served well to this day. But since I cannot
> > spend much effort for maintaining the build, and most of the active
> > developers are more comfortable with Maven, I guess it is time to
> simplify
> > things a little and solve this build problem once and for all, so that we
> > can spend more time focusing on core features.
> >
> > So what I am proposing is to have a volunteer for the build system who
> wants
> > to maintain the builds, and completely switch to Maven, and possibly
> getting
> > rid of the modular structure, and go with a one-module organization.
> Having
> > a modular project is great, and releasing different artifacts for hbase,
> > cassandra, sql, tutorial, etc is the preferred way, but again, it may be
> > causing more headaches. The volunteer maintainer will develop the
> patch(es)
> > for completely switching to Maven, and will oversee the build-related
> > issues.
> >
> > What do you guys think?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Enis
>
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
> Senior Computer Scientist
> NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
> Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
> Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
> WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message