Well, what I'll do then is convert proton's build to maven and submit that as a patch attached to an issue, then I'll look into what it would take to get qpid-java's build to maven, too. If those diffs pass inspection, good. If not, we can fix them or ignore them as desired.
On Monday, July 23, 2012, Robbie Gemmell <[email protected]> wrote: > I wouldn't particularly be in favour of Ant+Ivy for proton. I did that for > the main Qpid java stuff because it allowed a long overdue clean up of our > repo and didn't involve changing the entire build system (if it had, I > woudn't have done it), but if I was starting afresh I'd be using Maven for > that too. > > Robbie > > On 23 July 2012 20:54, Weston M. Price <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 23, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Robbie Gemmell wrote: >> >> > I think its safe to say Maven is a lot more mature now than it was back >> > then, and is much more widely used. The issues that existed then >> certainly >> > don't seem to bother the massive numbers of large projects using it >> today. >> > >> > Given how popular it is with other developers as a build system and as a >> > route for their projects to consume artifacts, I'd generally be in favour >> > of making the switch if only to be nice citizens to prospective users of >> > proton. >> +1 >> Notwithstanding my personal dislike of maven, it seems to have become the >> de facto standard. Although, we could use Ivy+Ant like we do in the current >> code base. This would be my personal preference but the maven thing has >> truly become a 'if you can't beat them, join them' thing for me so I would >> be fine either way. >> >> Weston >> >> > >> > Robbie >> > On 23 Jul 2012 20:00, "Rajith Attapattu" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> I personally prefer the simple ant based system. >> >> The last time Qpid used maven it was horrible :) .. it downloaded the >> >> entire universe into my computer. >> >> We also had trouble doing repeatable builds. >> >> Now I don't know if it was due to the way Maven was used or if it was >> >> an issue with Maven itself. >> >> I've never had issues with ant before --- it always worked for me :) >> >> With Maven it wasn't particularly a pleasant experience. >> >> So I'm biased there and please don't blame me for that. >> >> >> >> Having said that, I'm not going to make a fuss, if the majority wants >> >> Maven ! >> >> >> >> One more thing. Converting the build system to maven is fine, but who >> >> ever does that should also take the responsibility of maintaining it >> >> as well :) >> >> To a certain extent that was also an issue with the previous attempt >> >> at using maven. >> >> >> >> Rajith >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Oleksandr Rudyy <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> I completely support Joseph's proposal to use maven as building system >> >>> for j-poton module. >> >>> >> >>> Kind Regards, >> >>> Alex >> >>> >> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >>> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > -- Joseph B. Ottinger http://enigmastation.com Ça en vaut la peine.
