[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
rdonkin 2003/09/08 11:20:53Preferace: I am not a resources committer.
Modified: resources build.xml Added: resources build-legacy.xml Log: Replaced legacy build.xml with maven generated one
I am happy with all the other many changes that you made, except this one.
I don't consider an ant build file legacy. Why was this done when to my knowledge it isn't necessary ? Does the generated maven.xml do every thing that the old ant build does ? Is it as well documented for build targets ?
I would like to see this file restored as it was.
hi rob
this is what's usually meant by mavenization. (sorry if you misunderstood what i mean.)
the maven build becomes the primary, maintained build. the old hand-written ant build file becomes the legacy build. most components using maven found that maintaining two different build systems (hand coded ant build script and mavenized project) produces too many conflicts. it is also dangerous since gump and nightly builds work from the ant build.xml - if this is not maintained, then there may be false positives and false negatives.
i'd be happy to revert to the manual base build but IMHO maven is pretty much all-or-nothing. so i'd say that reverting this changes also means reverting all the mavenization i've done. if the community chooses reversion, i'd propose removing the maven build altogether and instead use anakia (or forrest) to build the documentation. it's cleaner, clearer and easier to maintain that way.
if you still feel strongly about this i'd be happy if you nominated yourself as a commons-resources committer and put mavenization to the VOTE.
(i'd be happy to revert all the changes i've made and put an anakia - or forrest - based documentation build target into the ant build script instead if the VOTE goes against mavenization.)
- robert
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
