2010/8/31 Nathan Bubna <[email protected]>: > But at this point, you'll have my support in a > vote for moving this into the Engine 2.0, Tools 2.1, etc, with one > condition: documentation. With the proliferation of artifacts and > their various reasons and dependencies, we need some very > user-friendly "Which Jar Is For Me?" type of documentation for users.
Ok I will work on it. > We also need to be sure that you aren't the only one who understands > how this customized, complicated Maven build works. This is fairly standard, the "complication" is only in the number of artifacts. OTOH I must say that Ant builds are much more complicated when seen for the first time, because everyone uses his style of coding. > And finally, i > don't know if maven can do this, but one of my current favorite parts > of the Velocity and VelocityTools build files is that they spit out > customized directions for building and publishing releases right along > with the target output, including what documentation to be sure and > update. That really helps to keep me on track when i'm doing > releases. Can you make an example, or tell me where to see? I missed this point. > Also, i'm curious whether any of these builds include OSGi manifest > creation? That's a recent addition to some of our builds (just engine > and tools at this point, i think), that i don't want to lose. It is possible (I've already done it with Tiles) however I forgot to put it. Did you publish any of these OSGi-ready packages, so I can configure the plugin correctly? > All in all, this is great work, and i'm excited to see us move in a > more standard direction for our next versions. I am very sorry that > it took me so long to respond, and i hope you aren't too discouraged > that no one else has responded yet. No problem, when I've nothing to do, there's Tiles that keeps me busy :-P Thanks Antonio --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
