To be honest - I would prefer River being mavenized. But I understand it would be a huge effort and the benefits are disputable. I found working with existing build easy - just imported the project into Eclipse - had to set up some library paths etc. Ant build works fine. The only issue is that there is no automatic "mvn install" support - so there is a problem if you want to test your changes locally using some maven based services.
There is only a script that deploys jars to Maven Central. The fix is to - instead of relying on the script - modify the poms to use Maven build-helper plugin and let Maven handle "install" and "deploy". I would share this patch some time ago. But here we get to another problem with River community (IMHO). I've got an impression new committers are not welcome Sending patches is a PITA. And I cannot work on my own branch in SVN (since I am not a committer). Various proposals were commented along the lines of "do your own project at github" - it does not really make new people FEEL welcome. My advice to River community would be - make new committers welcome - let them work on their ideas, make them feel comfortable and - possibly - merge their work. At this moment my impression is that contributions, new ideas, changes etc. are actually rejected. So the project is stalled. Thanks, Michal On Thursday 10 of April 2014 20:15:33 Rafał Krupiński wrote: > 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!". -- Michał Kłeczek XPro Sp. z o. o. ul. Borowskiego 2 03-475 Warszawa Polska
