It's ok. It confuses me, too. I keep wondering how I knew some of these things enough to have commented as well as the other Ted does. Then I notice that it was him.
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Doug Meil <[email protected]>wrote: > > Oops... Sorry, the "Ted" in my message was aimed at Ted Yu. > > > > > On 10/9/11 6:19 PM, "Doug Meil" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >Hey Ted, we were working on a ticket a few months ago and I was having > >trouble because I was working with Maven 3 and you said it wasn't > >supported (or didn't work well). > > > >If that's not the case anymore I'll update the book. > > > > > > > >On 10/9/11 4:31 PM, "Ted Dunning" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>The book is already slightly out of date. > >> > >>Maven 3 is better and handles almost all maven 2 builds pretty > >>seamlessly. > >> I don't see a problem with moving forward rather than back. > >> > >>On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Jesse Yates <[email protected]> > >>wrote: > >> > >>> So the book says to use Maven 2, rather than Maven 3. Is it just that > >>>the > >>> docs are out of date or was there some discussion I'm missing? The only > >>> thing I could find was that we should actually use maven 3 ( > >>> http://search-hadoop.com/m/V9sBo1Kxzab1). > >>> > >>> I feel like Maven 3 is solid at this point (I've been building trunk > >>>with > >>> it > >>> pretty consistently) and is pretty standard as far as industry usage. > >>> > >>> Should I just put in a Jira for updating docs? > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Jesse Yates > >>> > > > >
