In order to give the project the best basis for reaching a sound decision (pro-con comparison between the three suggested angles - ant+ivy, gradle, maven), we could just as easily create also dev branches for the other two options and have proponents work on that so that these can also be evaluated by all.
I am willing to work on the ant+ivy angle. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:13 AM, Pierre Smits <[email protected]> wrote: > I already establised a working solution for better dependency management > based on ant+ivy. Resulting in a reduction of zip size to 1/5 of the > checkout at that time (35 MBs). And it seems with less effort/less > complexity than is now is being shown in the OFBIZ-6172 branch... > > I suggested a dev branch back then ( > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5464) so that others could > evaluate. Unfortunately it didn't gather momentum at the time. > > Does that mean that it is a worse fit? I dare say: not! > > > > > > > > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Ron Wheeler < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Perhaps it would be a good idea for some of the key people to take a >> close look at what has been done. >> >> This is potentially a big step forward in modernizing the product. >> >> Having a working solution takes a lot of the FUD out of the discussion >> and allows the approach to be tested by the people who are building OFBiz >> every day. >> >> Even if it actually does everything that Adam claims and the consensus of >> the committers is to move to Maven, it will still be a good idea to support >> the 2 build methods until everyone important is ready to commit to Maven. >> It may take a while to get the Maven approach sold to everyone even if they >> know that at some point they will be forced to move. Some will be early >> adopters and some will be late but if you don't have to force everyone to >> move at once, it does make the transition easier. >> >> If it is the consensus that the Ant build is still better, the Maven >> stuff is easy to remove without damaging the Ant build. >> >> I suggest leaving it in until everyone who needs to test it before the >> decision is made, has a chance to test it. >> It is unreasonable to expect each of the committers to make their own >> Maven build to test the idea. >> >> Adam has saved us a lot of speculation about what it means to move to >> Maven. >> >> Give the supporters and skeptics some time to test before removing it. >> >> Ron >> >> >> On 22/04/2015 2:52 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >> >>> On Apr 21, 2015, at 10:37 PM, Adam Heath <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> My commit is not breaking anything. Why remove something that is >>>> harmless? >>>> >>> Hi Adam, >>> >>> The fact that a commit is harmless is not enough for its approval. >>> I know that your commit doesn't cause any side effects and I appreciate >>> that you are now doing your work in a feature branch. >>> I am asking you to revert that commit to trunk not because its quality >>> is bad or I see potential issues but only because the decision about the >>> official build tool for the project must be taken by the community and we >>> are not planning to maintain more than one alternative options in the >>> official repository. >>> Just to make it super clear, I restate my request: please revert 1674216 >>> (it is the only commit to trunk) then let's continue the work about Maven >>> in the release branch you have created. >>> In the meantime the discussion about "ant vs ant+ivy vs maven vs gradle >>> vs ..." will go on and its outcome will determine the final decision; since >>> there are clearly different points of view for the different tools we all >>> have to be open to consider other's opinions: crystallized positions will >>> not help much in this context. >>> The branch you have created is valuable because it provides a reference >>> implementation for the discussion, but it is important that you appreciate >>> that it may not be merged into the project (based on the outcome of the >>> ongoing discussion). >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jacopo >>> >> >> >> -- >> Ron Wheeler >> President >> Artifact Software Inc >> email: [email protected] >> skype: ronaldmwheeler >> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 >> >> >
