On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:11:13 -0800, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:05:30 -0800, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > We don't want 'core' building stuff in 'apps'. The 'core' subproject > > should not know about any other subprojects. As we discussed on > > another thread, any uber-build stuff we have should live in a 'build' > > pseudo-subproject, so that it's not part of any individual subproject. > > > > However, note that such an uber-build would serve only two purposes: > > (1) to make the nightly builds slightly simpler; (2) for the > > convenience of developers wanting to build everything. Since the > > subprojects will be independently released, we will not need an > > uber-build to handle the release process. For these reasons, I think > > the uber-build, if we have one, should be kept very simple. > > We could also just have the nightly build script create a binary for > each of the top level subprojects, and skip having an uber-build at > all. Then, we'd just need a build at the top of each subproject's > tree, and most of them have one already.
That would be fine with me. > I'd like to do just one source distro, though, that has all the > subprojects in it. Stripping out the JAR files that were incorrectly > included in last night's build will get the size back to reasonable. > Does this sound agreeable? Are you thinking that this would be just a part of the nightly build process, rather than something an uber-build would do (thus avoiding the uber-build again)? That would also be fine with me. At some point, though, I do want to get the nightly builds running on ASF hardware. (Yeah, I know, I've been saying that for ages and haven't done anything about it. But I will one day. Really. ;) -- Martin Cooper > > > > -- > > Martin Cooper > > > > Craig > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
