I agree with Mike's point. Given the code structure as it stands we
should be doing a full build before checking changes is. This doesn't
prevent any kind of profile being created for intermediate builds but
on check in we need to ensure that everything works. You will of
course say but we don't
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Simon Lawssimonsl...@googlemail.com wrote:
Alternatively we have to take a manual approach. I see the code
separated into a core and the extensions that the core supports. We
could make some rules/profiles for the types of build you need to do
depending on
structure like that so IMHO what Giorgio is doing with a profile that
suits himself seems like a fine way to make a gradual start on this.
Absolutely, this isn't about moving code about in the repository it's
about understanding which profiles/tests/contracts support more
granular builds.
2009/9/1 Simon Laws simonsl...@googlemail.com:
structure like that so IMHO what Giorgio is doing with a profile that
suits himself seems like a fine way to make a gradual start on this.
Absolutely, this isn't about moving code about in the repository it's
about understanding which
Giorgio Zoppi wrote:
However if we compartamentalize dependencies i guess that's is
feasible to identify some part of the infrastructure that are loosely
or tighly connected. And one could work on with a small set of the
infrastructure without breaking things.
Just 1c,
Giorgio.
Folks,
I am
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Mike
Edwardsmike.edwards.inglen...@gmail.com wrote:
ant elder wrote:
I see no issue at all with adding a (or several) new profiles that
only build a subset of modules that anyone finds a useful combination,
and they could be just committed without needing any
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Giorgio Zoppigiorgio.zo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi guys,
Is feasible (i'm not a great maven expert) a more selective building
options? Because Tuscany is getting bigger, and as user i would expect
to choose what compile or not without editing any pom.
AFAIK, what
2009/8/28 Luciano Resende luckbr1...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Giorgio Zoppigiorgio.zo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi guys,
Is feasible (i'm not a great maven expert) a more selective building
options? Because Tuscany is getting bigger, and as user i would expect
to choose what
2009/8/28 ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Giorgio Zoppigiorgio.zo...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi guys,
Is feasible (i'm not a great maven expert) a more selective building
options? Because Tuscany is getting bigger, and as user i would expect
to choose what compile or
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Giorgio Zoppigiorgio.zo...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/28 ant elder ant.el...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Giorgio Zoppigiorgio.zo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi guys,
Is feasible (i'm not a great maven expert) a more selective building
options? Because
ant elder wrote:
I see no issue at all with adding a (or several) new profiles that
only build a subset of modules that anyone finds a useful combination,
and they could be just committed without needing any consensus. The
problems would come if we tried to make one of those subsets the build
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Mike
Edwardsmike.edwards.inglen...@gmail.com wrote:
ant elder wrote:
I see no issue at all with adding a (or several) new profiles that
only build a subset of modules that anyone finds a useful combination,
and they could be just committed without needing any
12 matches
Mail list logo
