I spent some time on the phone with a user wanting to build from source. What they proposed as a use case was:
1) user finds a bug or needs a feature 2) user checks out source (trunk), makes changes 3) user now wants to type some simple command and have the set of jars built. 4) user *does not* want the complete uimaj-distr build which includes the source - they already have that - but does want the binary build, perhaps without the javadocs (which are slow to build). If that's the use case, perhaps we should make the uimaj / uima-as mvn install projects look like the -distr project, but without the source build? Or, we could add a parameter -PnoSource (or something like that) to the mvn command for the -distr projects? -Marshall On 11/17/2010 6:42 AM, Marshall Schor wrote: > Prior to 2.3.1, our release process used the names uimaj and uima-as to refer > to > a common parent-pom for these projects, as well as for being poms which served > to "aggregate" the multi-module build (that is, these poms had <modules> > sections referring to all the submodules). > > When I was doing the maven align work, I split these two purposes - so there > was > (now) one common parent-pom, and (several) aggregation poms; the aggregation > poms allowed building parts of these multi-module projects, together. The > original uimaj and uima-as projects have remained, but are currently unused. > > One user tried a "conventional" way of building things, by assuming the uimaj > project was an appropriate target for "mvn install". We could make this so, > making it an aggregator pom, essentially copying the aggregate-uimaj pom to > this > as a new name. I think this would make our project more "conventional", and > would therefore be a good thing. > > If others agree, I'll make this change, and also update the docs (which now > say > to use the aggregate-uimaj project to build all the modules of that, etc.). > > Other opinions? > > -Marshall > >
