Well ... you raise interesting points. So if a committer would be willing to support GIT, RTC, and whatever (just making up scenarios), would we allow all of those to exist within Lucene?
I think the reasonable solution is to have a modules/maven package, with build.xml that generates whatever needs to be generated. Whoever cares about maven should run the proper Ant targets, just like whoever cares about Eclipse/IDEA can now run "ant eclipse/idea". We'd have an "ant maven". If that's what you intend doing in 2657 then fine. The release manager need not be concerned w/ Maven (or whatever) artifacts, they are not officially published anywhere, and everyone's happy. As long as all tests pass, the release is good to go. Is that better? Shai On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Steven A Rowe <sar...@syr.edu> wrote: > -1 from me on dropping Maven artifacts. > > I find it curious that on the verge of fixing the broken Maven artifacts > situation (LUCENE-2657), there is a big push for a divorce. > > Robert, I agree we should have a way to test the "magic" artifacts. I'm > working on it. Your other objection is the work involved - you don't want > to do it. I will do the work. > > We should not drop Maven support when there are committers willing to > support it. I obviously count myself in that camp. > > Steve > > Robert Muir <rcm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey > > > > Wearing on my rebel hat today, I'd like to propose we drop maven support > > from our release process / build system. I've always read about the maven > > artifacts never being produced right, and never working (or maybe never > is a > > too harsh word). > > > > I personally don't understand why we struggle to support Maven. I'm > > perfectly fine if we say that "Lucene/Solr uses SVN, Ant and release a > bunch > > of .jar files you can embed in your project". Who says we need to support > > Maven? And if so, why only Maven (I'm kidding !)? > > > > Are you with me? :) > > > > I am, the last time i suggested releasing 3.1, a 99-email thread about > maven ensued that basically left me frustrated and not wanting to work > towards a release. > > We still don't have a "test-maven" target that does even trivial > verification of these magical artifacts that most of us don't > understand... like any other functionality we have, we should have > tests so that the release manager can verify things are working before > the release. If we have a "contrib" thats unmaintained with no tests, > would we let it block a release? > > I don't think we should let the maven problems hold lucene releases > hostage. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
