Aight, its out... give it a whirl and let me know if you run into
anything.
--jason
On Aug 22, 2006, at 6:26 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
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
