Sounds reasonable. I think we need decide how BUCK participate in various workflows - for example does apache pre-build commit and daily build need to build with BUCK (in addition to building with ant), or not. I assume that's also why Camille mentioned Jenkins.
On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Patrick White <pwh...@fb.com> wrote: > My intent at this point is not to replace anything, just to add the > ability to build with buck. Maintaining multiple build systems is a pain > for sure, but I'd wager the majority of the burden of buck maintenance > would fall on Facebook since we're the primary users of it to build > zookeeper at this point. > > ________________________________ > From: Michael Han <h...@cloudera.com> > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 3:02:51 PM > To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org > Subject: Re: Ever considered using buck to build? > > Is this proposal intended to use BUCK to replace ant someday, or just add > BUCK as an alternative build system? I thought it's not replacing ant, but > I want double check, because choosing a build system vs support multiple > build system are different topics. > > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Patrick White <pwh...@fb.com> wrote: > > > My bad, I'll clarify. > > > > > > Internally, we build and test with buck, but we don't worry about the > > bin,conf,share,etc folders. So it's a thing that is possible (and I'll > > certainly do it if there's interest) we just haven't put effort behind it > > because... well we don't use it that way. > > > > re: jenkins. uhhhh... I'll have to get back to you on that one. (never > > used it, but I'll go download it and see what shakes loose) > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Camille Fournier <cami...@apache.org> > > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:11:15 PM > > To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Ever considered using buck to build? > > > > Did you... Just list as a con that actually it currently won't work? > > > > Does it work on Jenkins? > > > > On May 5, 2017 4:51 PM, "Patrick White" <pwh...@fb.com> wrote: > > > > > Howdy! I'm Patrick from the core systems team at Facebook, and I work > on > > > ZooKeeper and ZooKeeper accessories all day long. > > > > > > Proposal: I want to add BUCK files to the zookeeper source tree. > > > > > > > > > Hear me out: > > > > > > TL; DR - I want to hear everyone's thoughts and opinions on the matter. > > > > > > > > > At Facebook, we use buck (buckbuild.com) to build everything. Buck > turns > > > out to be a really nice build system. It's easy to set up and super > > fast. I > > > love buck. > > > > > > > > > Ben put together some nice BUCK files that we use internally to build > > > zookeeper and zkcli. Since we're already working to sync back with > > > upstream, we'd love to get them in. > > > > > > > > > Pros: > > > > > > Buck files are a lot easier to work with than maven, ant, or anything > > else > > > > > > Buck's fast > > > > > > These files do absolutely nothing for or against people who want to use > > > maven or ant > > > > > > 'java_binary' generates a single executable file containing all the > jars > > > > > > > > > Cons: > > > > > > Not one of the "conventional" java build systems > > > > > > BUCK files laying around are just trash for people not interested in > them > > > > > > Doesn't currently generate the typical layout of bin, conf, share, etc. > > > > > > - *currently*, it could probably be done > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Patrick > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Cheers > Michael. > -- Cheers Michael.
