> I can't say for sure how the now-withdrawn 1.2.2 release was built,
> but I can say with absolute certainty that it was not done using 'ant
> release'.

You are correct sir.  I attempted this manually.  I know I have run the
release target in the past, guess I just had a brain fart that day.  Anyway,
that is not important now.

While I would like to see more use of Maven, I don't agree that the Ant
build is a "major obstacle to cutting releases".  I do think it is pretty
complex.  I understand and use Ant almost to it's fullest extent on this and
other projects.  I guess I haven't used Maven enough to run into the
problems Martin states.  That would be a show stopper for me also.


--
James Mitchell
Software Engineer / Open Source Evangelist
EdgeTech, Inc.
678.910.8017
AIM: jmitchtx

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Struts Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: Maven and SVN [was: Re: [VOTE] Struts 1.2.4 Quality]


> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 06:13:39 -0700 (PDT), David Graham
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't think we have the volunteer hours to support starting from
scratch
> > and do you really want to rewrite ActionServlet, Action, etc.?  IMO, we
> > have a lot of tested, used, stable code that we should continue to use.
> >
> > You're right that we have some crufty old stuff that needs to be removed
> > (all jsp tags not in the html lib for example) but it's easier to delete
> > these items than starting from scratch.  Let's use Subversion's
abilities
> > to their fullest and just move things around as needed.
> >
> > IMO, the current Ant build is hopelessly complex and a major obstacle to
> > cutting releases.  Not that Ant itself is bad but the simplicity of
> > running 'maven clean dist' on every Commons project to get all build
> > artifacts is a dream compared to Struts' build.
>
> I've seen several people comment on the complexity of the Ant build,
> and frankly I don't get it. And I _really_ don't get that it is a
> "major obstacle to cutting releases".
>
> Yes, the Ant build requires that you know where you put the packages
> that Struts depends on, but surely that's not so hard. Most people
> know where they've put stuff after they've downloaded it. ;-) Once
> you've done that, there is little more to cutting a release than 'ant
> release' (and testing, of course ;).
>
> I can't say for sure how the now-withdrawn 1.2.2 release was built,
> but I can say with absolute certainty that it was not done using 'ant
> release'. That target is rock solid, and has never failed me. So an
> absolute minimum requirement for a move to Maven, in my book, is that
> there is a way to construct a release, with the same structure as we
> do today, as easily as there is with the Ant build.
>
> When I first started using Maven, I thought it was the bees knees.
> After I'd spent more time with it, I continued to believe that it was
> a great advance - when things worked as expected. The way it will go
> off and download dependencies or deploy the web site is great.
>
> The problem I have with Maven is when things go wrong (which seems to
> be all too often for me). Unlike with Ant, with which all is plain for
> all to see, when something goes wrong with Maven, it seems to be a
> total mystery as to what happened. I'm frequently told "Oh, you need a
> later version of the foo plugin". Managing the tool's dependencies
> becomes far worse than managing the dependencies of the project I'm
> trying to build or release.
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- James Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > 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]
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]

Reply via email to