On 4 January 2011 15:36, Rafael Schloming <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 01/04/2011 07:41 AM, Gordon Sim wrote: > >> On 12/21/2010 10:54 AM, Marnie McCormack wrote: >> >>> This discussion is something worthy of its own thread with a meaningful >>> subject name on dev. >>> >>> There are quite a few opinions out there on the subject and likely >>> requires >>> a vote to make major changes. >>> We've been through so many build system re-writes that I don't have much >>> appetite for more. But I'm definitely not the voice of build - so a full >>> discussion would be best. >>> >> >> I would pretty much echo Marnie's view on this. >> > > +1 > > Personally I think jumping into major build system changes at this point is > going to be a waste of time. I think past discussions have made clear that > changing *how* the various components and artifacts are built is really just > going to introduce more churn, and we have more basic issues to address > around *what* components and artifacts are delivered and how the code is > structured/divided into modules. > > --Rafael > > > +1 from me too. I'm not sure what we think the objective of moving to maven now would be. I agree with Emmanuel in the other thread that delivering official artefacts for Maven repos is a sensible objective, but I don;t think we need to/should move to Maven simply for that. As Rafi says above, I think we need a sensible discussion on what the components and artefacts are (across the whole project, not just the Java part) before jumping into tool selection/change. Related, (at least as far as maven is concerned), is the notion of (external) dependency management - however again I think we want to define our desired outcome before selecting the tool. I think the discussion on modules / components / artefacts is probably one of the more important things we have to do in 2011. -- Rob
