>> Reality check: "Signs, MD5, and Uploads to Apache dist (with no >> additional dependencies or configuration)" - how's this going to work, >> via telepathy? :-D
Trusted hosts (or same host) and a continuous integration server with a manually invoked distribution target. CI server runs as the "deploy" user which is a trusted signatory of the Apache distribution system. Clinton On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Larry Meadors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Brandon Goodin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As a follow up to all who are reading this thread. Let me be very clear. > Any > > aggressive comments are made in jest and fun. We are all good friends > here > > and enjoy the big brother banter. Please don't take this as an > opportunity > > to truly dig on any one of us. > > ...well, except for Brandon. He really is a butthead. ;-) > > Funny how everyone gets so worked up about how we'll implement > build.sh, isn't it? :-) > > Since everyone has an opinion on this, here's mine: I think we should use > Maven. > > I agree with Clinton that there aren't *problems* with the current > iBATIS build, but at the same time, it would simplify how we do > releases, because as we are seeing, there are more requests (even from > us) for maven artifacts by our users, and mavenizing our build will > make meeting our needs easier. > > IMO, the things that Clinton is asking for are not unreasonable, but > they are not uber-critical either. > > Let's be really honest here: How critical is it that we are able to > "echo arbitrary information to the command line, such as classpath in > use and current version being built"? Seriously? :-/ > > Reality check: "Signs, MD5, and Uploads to Apache dist (with no > additional dependencies or configuration)" - how's this going to work, > via telepathy? :-D > > It's going to be different if we use a different tool. Neither tool is > perfect, so yes, it'll suck. But ant sucks, too - just in a different > way. > > My vote is we arrange the source tree to fit what maven expects. > Clinton: I don't care if you don't have to do that with ant. :-P Then, > lets see how close we can get to all of the current ant script. If we > can't get 100%, I'm OK with that, if we can get close and work towards > that goal. > > At the end of the day, which ever one makes it easier for me to use > iBATIS (I really don't care about anyone else, sorry) is the one I > want. For me, that means Maven is the better choice. This is a one > time task, so maintenance is not that big of a deal, and it'll output > the jar (like ant does) and the maven artifacts (like ant does not). > It does more, and is a one time investment, let's just get it done and > move on. > > Larry >
