Jason Dillon wrote:
I agree that trunk should always be buildable... though its been
months since I've been able to build from the trunk :-P
I assume you mean you haven't been able to build using m2, not m1. m1
builds work fine for me.
John
--jason
On Jun 27, 2006, at 12:33 AM, John Sisson wrote:
I don't think we should be removing files until we have a 100%
functional m2 build. The trunk should always be buildable.
If the M2 build isn't going to be straightforward we should have some
information in something like the README.txt file documenting how the
build should be executed.
John
Jason Dillon wrote:
I think that removing the m1 files is a good idea, as it will help
force us to get m2 to build... which really should not take that
long to get functional 100% of the time.
--jason
On Jun 26, 2006, at 9:19 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Jacek Laskowski wrote:
On 6/26/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm suggesting that we declare the m1 build obsolete and remove it,
except possibly for the assembly step and perhaps modules where the
tests do not run under m2.
Well, don't get it annoying, but I still don't understand it. Let's
pretend we've named the m1 build obsolete, what's next? Shall we call
a vote? If it passes, what would be the next steps? If you removed
the
top-level build.xml I'd know what it'd mean, but now I don't get it.
Yes, we call a vote then remove the project.xml/project.properties
files. build.xml is for Ant; I don't think we use that.
Regards,
Alan
