On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Richard Frovarp wrote: > On 7/16/2010 3:34 AM, Andreas Hartmann wrote: > > Am 16.07.10 09:55, schrieb Vik Tara: > > > On 07/16/2010 08:53 AM, Vik Tara wrote: > > > > > > > > > > WDYT ? > > > > > > > > > > > > Makes sense. We could do something very quick and dirty :), as maven > > > > can just call ant tasks. > > > > > > > > So as a first step perhaps just make lenya build from maven by calling > > > > the exsiting ant tasks - and then replace them one by one? > > > > > > > > This way everything will continue to work ok. > > > > > > A pause for thought though... > > > > > > Should we do this right now - or should we do it in the future lenya > > > version. > > > > > > We may spend a fair bit of time doing this now - time which we could > > > spend making new modules etc. > > > > I totally agree. Fundamental changes to the build process of a stable app > > might be not such a good idea. There are many risks of breaking things, and > > you introduce a barrier for people who are familiar with the current build > > process. > > > > > What are the benefits of doing it now? > > > > * Use Maven's dependency mechanism for our module dependencies > > * Get rid of our custom dependency management > > * Reduce the size of the repository > > > > But I agree that we should rather spend our limited resources on code that > > creates a direct benefit for users. > > > > -- Andreas > > > > > I'm a big fan of maven, but I'm with Andreas on this one. I don't think that > a switch to Maven on the current branch (2.1.x) is worth the risks. As a > community, I think we have more urgent needs than switching the current > version to maven. Here's my list:
OK, I see your point, Richard. > 1) Fix editor problem (some tasks are remaining) > 2) Better documentation (specifically surrounding editor problems) > 3) Release 2.1.0 > 4) Close tickets (over 200 open, some for years, looks very bad) > 5) Design V3 > 6) Implement V3 > > At the meeting, there was strong consensus that v3 is going to be completely > different. It will be built from the ground up on JCR and Cocoon probably > won't be our primary engine. V3 will be built from the ground up to use maven > and probably OSGi. The issues surrounding converting the existing project to > maven won't be the same with a fresh project. > > I think we need to do 1 & 2 above quickly, which would result in 3. We should > also be working towards 5, so we can do 6. It would be so nice to go to > Apache Con in November with a design for v3 and to be able to encourage > people to work on the project. > > The 2.2 branch is there to do Cocoon 2.2 and maven. Experimenting there, > learning there is a good thing and can be a useful set of skills and > experiences for the future. I am -1 on switching 2.1.x to maven. Actually, I was going to propose to do new development and migration to maven on different branches, with the possibility to merge later on. So, I'm +1 on your proposal. Rainer --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lenya.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lenya.apache.org
