On 3/3/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's a very good point. Do we: > > 1) Want to keep Commons on a unified build system? > 2) Want to keep Commons sites on a similar style? > 3) Want to only support one build system? > > My personal view is that our Maven-1 current build system for Commons > is overly complicated - it needs to be simpler.
Are you talking about the code-build-test cycle, site generation, creating distributions, or all three? I have an open mind on this, but pretty much agree with Martin that things aren't really broken that badly. I agree also that we need to keep supporting ant and would not like to see us go back to the sites all looking different. >The Maven-2 proposed > one is definitely better, How, exactly? The painful stuff around rolling distros and getting the right stuff into them will not go away as far as I can see, unless we relax requirements or do some sort of custom plugins, which we could also do in m1. The signing and notices stuff we *can't* relax. Again, I am open to moving and will help if and when we decide we want to move, but want to make sure we don't think that moving to m2 will solve everything magically. > and we need to make sure we don't get sloppy > and start using unreleased or complex things. Not that we can move to > Maven-2 as things aren't released. > Agree with you and Brett on this point. Question is does it make sense to try to fix things in m1 in the mean time - e.g. fix the entity stuff in the menus that makes maven 1.1 choke and add the explicit xdoc dependency into all of the poms? > Currently we support Ant and Maven-1; though poorly. We need a CI > system that runs maven ant on the chiefly Maven-1 ones, and warns when > the chiefly Ant ones change build.xml's without an m1 change. Don't follow this. Not all changes to the POM will result in changes to build.xml nor vice-versa. Also, running maven ant will change the file even if the POM has not changed. If you mean we need a better nightly build system, here again, it ain't broke from my perspective (other than maybe Craig starting to feel like we are the guests who never leave ;-) >I can't > imagine getting away from Ant builds - so unless we go back to Ant > alone, we'll always have 2 systems. > > I'd like to get around the issue of keeping the sites similar by > making the sites hugely simpler - another place where we > over-complicate I think. How exactly? You think we should eliminate the reports? If kept up to date, these can be useful. Maybe you mean the custom site.jsl and the entities-based menus. Those are really the source of all of the site build problems. But if you use maven 1.0.2 and xdoc 1.9.2, things work fine. Phil > > Hen > > On 3/3/06, Apache Wiki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Wiki user, > > > > You have subscribed to a wiki page or wiki category on "Jakarta-commons > > Wiki" for change notification. > > > > The following page has been changed by MartinCooper: > > http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta-commons/Maven2MigrationPlan > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > * el > > * email > > * feedparser > > - * fileupload > > + * fileupload - Happy with Maven 1. No interest in moving to Maven 2. > > * httpclient > > * io > > * jelly - m1 Jelly plugin needs moving to Jelly and then converting to > > an m2 plugin > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
