Sounds good...thanks for taking this approach.
Jason Dillon wrote: > I mentioned before, that if we use antrun here, that it will cause other > antrun executions to fail since plugins are only initialized once, and > some plugins need to add some additional dependencies. > > Its also much more difficult to support executions of individual steps > using antrun. > > Best bet is to use something external... before it was /bin/sh... and > now its gonna be Ant. I think that is better that /bin/sh and batch. > > --jason > > > On Aug 22, 2006, at 6:16 PM, Jeff Genender wrote: > >> Jason, >> >> Why not use the ant-run plugin for maven instead of a build.xml? >> >> http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-antrun-plugin/ >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> Jason Dillon wrote: >>> I've whipped up an equivalent bootstrap.xml, testing it now... >>> >>> if it works as expected I will commit it, and a bootstrap and >>> bootstrap.bat that will invoke the build. >>> >>> Then, everyone needs to have Ant 1.6.5 installed (and ant available on >>> the PATH) and Cygwin is no longer required. >>> >>> --jason >>> >>> >>> On Aug 22, 2006, at 3:14 PM, Jeff Genender wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Jacek Laskowski wrote: >>>>> On 8/22/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> I meant to just use Ant... if we end up using antrun from the >>>>>> bootstrap it will end up causing other antrun's to fail later on >>>>>> since some of them need additional dependencies... which won't work. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, didn't think about it. Are you really suggesting to use Ant beside >>>>> Maven? It's getting too complicated to just get started. When do you >>>>> think bootstrap will go away? Is it worth to talk about it any more? >>>>> >>>>> Jacek >>>>> >>>> >>>> I hope this is not taken negatively...as it is not meant that way... >>>> >>>> I think it is worth talking about, especially when we think bootstrap >>>> will go away. I respect Jason's disdain for Windows, but it also is >>>> the >>>> most used and most popular OS...which means it probably represents a >>>> large base of our community. :) >>>> >>>> IMHO, if we are to continue with the bootstrap, then I think it is >>>> reasonable to support both *nix and Windows. No...I am not >>>> volunteering >>>> as I have other things on my plate, but I think if Mark D. wants to >>>> take >>>> on supporting the Windows side, I cannot find a negative in this. >>>> What I >>>> do not think is reasonable is forcing any user to have to install >>>> Cygwin >>>> (even though I love it) to build G on Windows. Cygwin is a fairly >>>> large >>>> install and I have been at companies where one is forbidden to have it >>>> on corporate machines. >>>> >>>> So, my point is, if the bootstrap is short lived, then disregard my >>>> opinion ;-) But if it's gonna be with us for a while, lets allow the >>>> Windows bat version if Mark is willing to support it...or find >>>> something >>>> (like ant?) that will make it work on our most popular OS systems. >>>> >>>> Jeff
