On 3/3/06, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
I really mean site generation here. Dists are a pain, but not due to our build system. > >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. Guess this is a question for Brett. M2 sounds like it will be solving this kind of thing, will we be getting that kind of thing in M1? PGP signing, auto md5 etc. > > 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? If we decide to stay on M1, we should do that. > > 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 ;-) 2 build systems is 1 too many; they get out of sync. So we need to keep them synced, which CI can do for us (or a CI like thing). > >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. I think we should be folding the site into one site, with manuals per subproject. Release info would be put in a release structure (src, javadoc) and other reports would be hooked into the CI system. Separating the user and developer consumer-requirements, hopefully making our life easier. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
