I think this reflects what we discussed.   Many thanks to Dan for putting up 
with my argumentative nature, working hard to fix the problem, explaining it to 
me :-) and documenting everything here :-D

thanks
david jencks

On Nov 15, 2011, at 5:49 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:

> 
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 2:36:01 PM David Jencks wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:59 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 15, 2011 10:50:31 AM David Jencks wrote:
>>>> -1 to the <relative-path>s
>>>> 
> ....
> 
>>> I feel pretty strong that they SHOULD be there.    IMO,  we need to be
>>> able to just checkout trunk and run "mvn install"  and have it build
>>> and test and such.  That's how maven projects work.     Having it work
>>> properly "out of the box" for new users, IMO, trumps aesthetics of a
>>> release tag where the relativePath would be ignore anyway.   Without
>>> them, you get all kinds of warnings (if they work at all).
>> 
>> Since you are proposing the change, can you explain exactly what the problem
>> you are trying to solve is and how to reproduce it?  I haven't encountered
>> _any_ problems that this change would solve so it seems like a bad idea
>> with no redeeming features.  Also, what are the warnings you are referring
>> to?
> 
> David and I had a chat on IRC.  Log at:
> 
> http://irclogs.dankulp.com/logs/irclogger_log/apache-aries?date=2011-11-16,Wed
> 
> to discuss this and clear the air a bit.  Here is my summary:  (actually,I 
> think this summary is longer than the original IRC log)   David, please 
> correct anything I got wrong or missed.
> 
> Basically, IMO, any potential developer should be able to checkout Aries 
> trunk 
> (or ANY other Maven based project) and run "mvn install" and have it just 
> work.  They should not need to go to some web site or README or anything to 
> figure out how to build the project.   That's the whole point of Maven.  
> Conventions.  If it doesn't work, you are doing something wrong.     *THAT* 
> is 
> important to me and is the basic problem I'm trying to solve.   I also 
> believe 
> that the resulting build should be SUCCESSFUL and should also be error and 
> warning free as much as is possible.   That is secondary though.    Still 
> tackling the first part.  :-)    I also *prefer* that it work behind a 
> reasonably setup proxy/firewall (read: no snapshot deps not part of the 
> build), but that is definitely tertiary. 
> 
> In our specific case, we failed miserably.   Due to the snapshot parents, 
> maven could not resolve the parents without first going to the web site to 
> find out we need to build parents first, which is wrong.   David and I 
> discussed 4 possible options:
> 
> 1) Add relativePath entries to all the poms.   This was simple for me to do 
> which is what I did.  It's also consistent with what other projects I'm 
> involved in have done (CXF, Camel, Maven, etc...) which I why I didn't think 
> it would be a big deal.   Heck, if the Maven folks themselves recommend using 
> it and are using it for their plugins and such, I would think it would be OK. 
>   
> Apparently not.  :-)
> 
> 2) Do NOT use SNAPSHOT parents - if the parents are in Central, not a 
> problem.   
> I didn't realize the 0.5 versions were released, otherwise I think I would 
> have gone this route.   Even easier.  
> 
> 3) Combination of 1 and 2 - don't use SNAPSHOT parents unless you REALLY have 
> to, in which case use a relativePath until the parent is released.  
> 
> 4) For poms that have a snapshot parent, add a <repositories> entry to add 
> the 
> apache.snapshot repo in it so it can resolve the parent.   Again, when parent 
> is released, the repositories entry can be removed.
> 
> 
> Since 0.5 is released, I'll go back tomorrow and flip to #2.   However, this 
> does mean that if we need a 0.6 version, when we create the SNAPSHOTS, we'll 
> need to remember to do either #3 or #4 until released.  
> 
> On a side note: it *really* bothers me that there is work that has been done 
> on a branch that is not reflected on trunk.   IMO, trunk should always 
> reflect 
> the most up-to-date status of the code.   
> 
> Anyway, if anyone else has any input into this, feel free to add their 
> thoughts!
> 
> 
> -- 
> Daniel Kulp
> [email protected]
> http://dankulp.com/blog
> Talend - http://www.talend.com

Reply via email to