Make all of them separate gems? alex
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I'm fine either way. We just have to pick one way, migrate the current > > plugins and document how to do it. > > We have 11 components in addons, so we just need to decide what to do > with each one. > > antlr > cobertura > emma > hibernate > javacc > jdepend > jetty > jibx > nailgun > openjpa > xmlbeans > > Assaf > > > > > I can help but I don't have much experience with Gem packaging yet. If > > there's a good example I can learn from, I can probably port the other > > plugins and write some doc. > > > > alex > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > How about "addon" for optional plugins that have tests and are > officially > >> > supported and "experimental" for the rest? > >> > >> As of 1.3.0 we have a wonderful mechanism that allows you to package > >> extensions as separate Gems and require them in your buildfile, so > >> there's no need for either addon or experimental. If it's too > >> specific to be part of core, spin it off to its own sub-project and > >> gem. > >> > >> Assaf > >> > >> > > >> > alex > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 4:32 AM, lacton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:15 AM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> >> > The reason I didn't include addon to begin with is that everything > >> >> > there is (or was) stuff that fell out of lib: not as well > maintained, > >> >> > documented, tested or committed to. > >> >> > > >> >> > I wasn't expecting it to have full or for that matter any test > >> >> > coverage, but rather for some parts to mature and either move to > lib, > >> >> > or collected into separate gems (e.g. buildr-coverage). > >> >> > > >> >> > Not sure if we should keep this policy, but if we do, let's move > Emma > >> >> > and Cobertura to lib. > >> >> > >> >> Moving Emma and Cobertura to lib is fine with me. > >> >> > >> >> One thing I'd like to keep is that the extension should be loaded > only > >> >> if required by the user or the buildfile. Right now, the way the > >> >> Emma/Cobertura extensions work is to add the test coverage tool to > the > >> >> test task's dependencies and to add the instrumentation step before > >> >> testing. I don't want to penalize users that don't want to measure > >> >> their test coverage. > >> >> > >> >> My understanding is that, currently, everything in lib is required > >> >> during startup. Should we add an 'optional import' directory in lib? > >> >> > >> >> Lacton > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >
