If you have an questions about it, just drop me a note. It works like a charm for us but I guess it needs some tweaking for the public. We have covered all of our bases so far.
Klaas -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Alex Boisvert [mailto:alex.boisv...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Sonntag, 24. Januar 2010 20:17 An: users@buildr.apache.org Betreff: Re: dzone Yes, that's what I had in mind. I need to take a second serious look at it. alex On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Peter Schröder <p...@blau.de> wrote: > did you have a look at ivy4r ( > http://klaasprause.com/2009/07/12/ivy4r-using-apache-ivy-with-ruby/) ? > > we are using it for all of our projects. > > i think that it would be great to integrate something like that directly > into buildr. > > ________________________________________ > Von: Alex Boisvert [alex.boisv...@gmail.com] > Gesendet: Samstag, 23. Januar 2010 18:25 > An: users@buildr.apache.org > Betreff: Re: dzone > > Nice article. The comments/reactions to buildr are always interesting. > > If I can segway for a moment... The JVM build tool landscape has certainly > expanded much since buildr started. There are more potent choices > available > (e.g. Graddle and SBT). Maven2 has fixed a lot of issues from its early > days. And now Maven3 on the way... I think it gets more difficult to get > our message across because some of the alternatives may look similar on the > surface and may share some/many of the features. > > For better or worse, a distinguishing feature of Buildr remains its ties to > Ruby. Ruby is a great language with a rich ecosystem and a lively > culture. It can also be perceived as 'another language to learn' or > 'introducing yet-another language' into a project. I'd rank these fears as > our biggest obstacle to popularity. However, these fears are irrational > and > as a small project I don't think there's much we can do to overcome them. > > Beyond the language issue, I think our two most important challenges today > are 1) ease of installation and 2) a good story on dependency management. > We've gotten much better on the installation side recently and I hope the > all-in-one distro will help starting with Buildr 1.4.0. > > On the dependency management side, I consider what we have today very > solid. Whitelisting dependencies has worked very well for many of us on > big > projects and is probably an under-appreciated feature. It's hard to > communicate the value here without people having had bad experiences with > other transitive dependency management approach. The seduction of > transitive dependencies is too great -- on paper it always works > perfectly. So if there's one thing I'd like to improve after Buildr 1.4.0 > it's our story on dependency management. We need to communicate better > but > also add better tooling support. I think better/tigher integration with > Ivy > would go a long way. There's probably other good approaches out there and > I'd be interested in hearing about what other people think. > > My $0.02 on the buildr state of the union. Thanks for the article! Every > bit of advocacy helps. Now if I could find some time to blog... > > alex > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Peter Schröder <p...@blau.de> wrote: > > > hi, > > > > i posted a little article about buildr on dzone ( > > http://www.dzone.com/links/the_build_system_that_doesnt_suck.html). > > > > i hope that it will create some attention for buildr to let the community > > grow further. > > > > kind regards, > > peter >
