Dnia 2014-04-10, czw o godzinie 12:21 -0400, Greg Trasuk pisze: > Patches welcome! And new committers needed.
(...) > People have commented that the build system and the source code structure is > difficult to understand, and prevents them from participating in the > development. I understand that, but I also think that when we start to talk > about changing the build system, there’s a couple of incorrect assumptions at > work. > > First, we need to realize that the build system is there to produce > artifacts. In the case of the current releases, these artifacts are, in > fact, published to Maven Central. So although River isn’t built using Maven, > it is certainly compatible with Maven. A downstream project can use any > build system that can access Maven Central’s repository. That at least > covers Grails, Ivy, and Maven, and probably others. > > Second, at the current time, River releases one source package that includes > everything that River delivers, and so right now, everything River releases > is built using the archaic (but working!) River build system. I think you missed the point. I'm already a user, and I'm perfectly happy with the current build system. In fact I couldn't care less about the build system. Provided I remain a user. But becoming a contributor, or even a committer is entirely another matter. I don't understand the project structure and I don't want to touch those ant scripts, especially classanddepjar task, with a stick, let alone modify it. (...) > Having said that, I wouldn’t jump in and “Mavenize River”. Why would we need > to take on such a huge job, if the current build system works (ugly though it > is)? >From my perspective, as long River is built this way, "Patches (not) welcome!".
