On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Gary Dusbabek <gdusba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 12:42, Hannes Schmidt <han...@eyealike.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 6:21 AM, Gary Dusbabek <gdusba...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> Cassandra is a community of volunteers. If someone is willing to take > >> that half-hour and make Cassandra a mvn-friendly place and maintain it > >> whilst moving forward, I say let it happen. Make it easy for us to > >> package a release and push it to a repo. > > > > Ahh, the standard OS defense. ;-) I would deploy these jars to the public > > Maven repo in a second, if I had the creds to do so. > > > > What we really need is someone to own this by being willing to support > mvn users, respond to the jira tickets they generate, and send patches > to the committers. > > >> > >> Nobody has stepped up to do this though. We had a pom in trunk for > >> quite a while. None of the developers used it, and therefore had no > >> motivation to maintain it. > > > > None of them used it probably because it's hidden the contrib folder and > > they already had a working Ant build. You can't seriously maintain two > build > > systems for a project. It doesn't make sense and that's why nobody > adopted > > the alternative build system. > > > > It was in the root of trunk. > > >> > >> > Sorry for the rant but taking shortcuts like this forces every Maven > >> > user > >> > down the stream to either do the work for you, e.g to deploy the > >> > Cassandra > >> > JAR and its dependencies to their local repository or take the very > same > >> > shortcut. > >> > >> I disagree that every project should do things the mvn way for the > >> sake of making things easier for mvn users. > > > > No, but maybe every Apache project should? > > > > Why? "To make things easier for mvn users" isn't enough of an > argument to convince me. > I can't really help you with that. Maven users make up a considerable segment of your potential user base. If making life easier for them doesn't motivate you, I am not sure what does. It surely isn't a sense for the community. > > >> > >> > If I want to use the client in my own Maven-built project, I > >> > can't do so without manually deploying those two JARs along with the > >> > Hector > >> > JAR to my local repository. > >> > > >> > >> I've been there, and I feel your pain. Pushing three jars to your > >> local repo isn't a big deal though. If you're working on a team, > >> deploying three more jars on your nexus repo isn't too hard either. > >> > > > > Why don't you do it then? If you did it, you'd save many others from > having > > to do it. This isn't a you-vs-me kinda problem. It's a you-vs-many > problem. > > > > I don't wish to be the one to support it. Past experience has turned > me off to mvn. I have a me-vs-mvn problem. > > >> > >> Gary. > >> > >> > To add fuel to the fire, I don't think that there is a real need for > >> > two coexisting build systems for Cassandra (I'm speaking of Ant/Ivy > and > >> > Maven) but even if you decide to go with Ant/Ivy, the resulting > >> > artifacts > >> > should all be accessible in a public Maven repository. This is pretty > >> > much a > >> > convention for any OS project of Cassandra's reach and maturity. > >> > > >> > -- Hannes > >> > > > > > If I had more trust in the team's motivation to embrace a what I believe > is > > a truly better build tool than Ant/Ivy I would spend the time of > migrating > > Cassandra to Maven on an experimental branch and let you guys take a > look. > > But for this to work and be true evidence of Maven's superiority, the > jars > > in libs/ need to go away, hence this thread. > > I think that's an unfair judgment. Seriously--what's stopping you > sending in a patch that updates the pom and leaves us with artifacts > that can be pushed to a mvn repo? Wouldn't that satisfy your needs. > > Gary. > Reviving the currently abandoned pom.xml, waiting for the committers to push the project artifact and its dependencies in libs/ to a Maven repository would indeed satisfy my needs. But given the evidence for the project's "hate" against Maven I would be pretty naive to be devoting any significant amount of time to this, wouldn't I? It's the other way around. You had a beautifully working POM, a lot of work had gone into it but the team abandoned it, for example by closing 697 as won't fix.
