On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm volunteering to convert some of them to gems. Maintenance should be > split over the community. > > I was thinking of defining a common infrastructure (Github, release scripts, > wiki documentation and index) which can then be reused by others as template > and guidelines for new plugins.
Until that community steps forward and takes care of maintaining 11 gems, I would suggest something simpler, and more practical. First, decide what to do with each of these 11 components: antlr cobertura emma hibernate javacc jdepend jetty jibx nailgun openjpa xmlbeans Those that we want to see in lib, we know what to do with. The rest, we either discard, or find a different way to publish them, I would suggest a single catch-all buildr-addon gem. One gem is significantly less pain to maintain than 11. Assaf > > alex > > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > Make all of them separate gems? >> >> Are you volunteering to maintain 11 separate gems? >> >> Assaf >> >> > >> > 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >
