Note, I am *not* suggesting that maven is the best tool etc etc... that is not a discussion worth having here.
I am saying that the maven artifacts (pom files etc) generate in 3.x/trunk work well if you are using maven/ivy. I don't see why we want to drop that from the release? On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Jason Rutherglen <jason.rutherg...@gmail.com> wrote: >> the maven stuff in 3.x/trunk is actually pretty good > > I've heard that about every release of Maven, and any time I've tried > to use it, it doesn't quite work as expected, and given what it does > should be fairly trivial, the fact that there bugs/issues, and it's > been released to me has meant I don't want to use it. It's like a > toaster that also plays videos, I just want a toaster, thanks. > > On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Ryan McKinley <ryan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Well, you have always claimed that as de jure, I think defacto is that >>>> it's part of the release. And the defacto is to follow the 'release to >>>> do' best as makes sense (I'm not sure the Solr release to do wiki always >>>> makes much sense). I've been waiting for the day that you release Lucene >>>> and drop all consideration for Maven as you have said you would likely >>>> do - but I think most of us feel it's pretty much on the list and this >>>> general agreement will free us of our conscious. I was ready to follow >>>> your coat tails to freedom, but this way lets me off easier I think. >>>> >>> >>> Just my opinion: (personally i do not use maven, nor understand it). >>> If maven support is beneficial to bringing more devs to lucene, we should >>> consider what we can do. >>> But at the same time, perhaps Makefiles would bring more devs, too. >>> My problem with releasing with maven is that i could not honestly even +1 my >>> own release artifacts, because i don't know what the hell is going on with >>> the maven artifacts. >>> There has to be a way to let the "maven experts" take care of this stuff >>> somehow, if its really going to be beneficial. >> >> As a maven user (not an expert by any means), the maven stuff in >> 3.x/trunk is actually pretty good. Running: >> ant generate-maven-artifacts -Dmaven.dist.dir=maven -Dversion=4.0.rxxx >> makes a folder (maven) with everything it needs. This is *very* easy >> for maven apps to test against. >> >> What are the deploy steps that we are talking about dropping/changing? >> >> >> - - - - >> >> As an aside, I still think it is worth changing our dev builds from >> "-dev.jar" to "-SNAPSHOT.jar" so that the daily builds are >> automatically valid SNAPSHOT builds that are easy for maven/ivy users >> to work with. (LUCENE-2493) As is, maven users have to checkout and >> build with a special version to test/use a dev build -- since this is >> more work then many people want to deal with, we find problems with >> the maven pom files *after* the official release. >> >> >> ryan >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
