On the topic of Maven and SVN... SVN: We have discussed moving our current repository over to SVN and I know there are fancy scripts to do the conversion and all. We also have been discussing what 1.2.x, 1.3.x, and maybe 1.4.x will be adding vs. what 2.0 will bring.
Would it make sense just to 'start 2.0 from scratch'? What I mean is, we can have SVN setup for 2.0 development without the confusion and mess of the existing repository. I know SVN makes moving files/directories easy, but given the minimum specs we intend to move to, there is just too many hacks and old code in the existing source for supporting the old specs. Starting with a clean slate just seems to make the most sense to me. Do you agree? Maven: I have spent many hours over the last few weeks over in the commons sandbox 'playing around' with Maven (pun intended). I moved the Hibernate resource implementation (and tests) over to sf.net. Both distributions are 100% mavenized. I may have been critical of Maven in the past, but I have earned a new appreciation for this tool. It really is far superior to just using Ant. I believe no matter what path we take, with regards to SVN, that we should move our primary build system to Maven. We will lose nothing from what the current Ant script does, and yes, I am volunteering to help with this. So, that said, I am +1 for setting up a clean slate (2.0) on SVN and making it a 100% Mavenized build (multiproject). Your thoughts? -- James Mitchell Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist EdgeTech, Inc. 678.910.8017 AIM: jmitchtx ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 6:06 PM Subject: Re: [VOTE] Struts 1.2.4 Quality I'm not using Struts in production myself right now, so I'm going to abstain from voting in favor of them that do. :) I do still plan to help support the release once it is out. As to the voting in general ... On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:09:18 -0500, Joe Germuska wrote: > I wouldn't veto GA, but I'm not ready to say that I think this > release is GA either. A release is a majority vote. It can't be blocked by a veto. If there are 3 +1s and more (binding) +1s than -1s, the vote passes. (So, as of now, the vote passes. By convention, we wait 72 hours before taking action on a vote, so that people have a chance to weigh in.) Any PMC Member can unilaterally veto changes to the codebase and documentation on technical grounds (consensus vote), but most everything else is a (political) majority vote. No one person can block a release. On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:09:18 -0500, Joe Germuska wrote: > I vote "beta", because I haven't had (and won't have) time to test > it, and I see no reason to rush to call it GA. :) Then you probably shouldn't vote it beta, either. :) > I thought the whole > point of the new releasing scheme was to allow us to not have to > cut a new release if beta testing truly demonstrated release > quality. As I understand it, the point of the new releasing scheme is to * avoid re-tagging and re-rolling the final beta in a series, if it is otherwise ready to go. * reduce the need to "freeze" the repository for any longer than absolutely necessary. Aside from all that, a *huge* problem for Struts is that we keep making GA releases "triggers" for other events. * We decided not to transfer the repository to SVN until after we had put a 1.2.x GA release to bed. * Until we have a Struts 1.2.x GA, we're also holding the Struts Chain in abeyance, along with other proposed changes. * Until we have a Struts under SVN, everyone is reluctant to move forward with reorganizing the project, so we don't have to release *everything* at once. (Ironic, this one, since the reorganization would simplify the releases that are preventing us from reorganizing.) * Pending the reorganization, we have held off introducing new sub projects, like Struts Scripting. So, you see, a 1.2.x GA is the first in a long line of dominoes -- bam, bam, bam, bam, bam. Of course, the biggest reason of all to bring out a GA release is that: *** until we can stamp 1.2.x GA, over a year's worth Struts development is unavailable to thousands of teams that use Struts, but can't use anything but a GA. *** Sad, but true. We shouldn't stamp it GA unless it is GA. But, yes, it *is* urgent that we determine whether 1.2.4 is GA or not, so we can fix it and and roll it again, or let it go and move on. -Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
