part of the reason we haven't moved to maven (this is supposition since i have not been involved in the decision at all) is that it doesn't buy that much over ant. both maven and ant are complex and slow. the one thing maven has is the repository for dependencies.
i have been using buck for a while and i really like it. you can use the maven repos without having to use maven. the gerritt devs are also fans: http://gerrit-talks.commondatastorage.googleapis.com/buck-rant.html#1 it hasn't reached critical mass though, so i'm not sure we want to move exclusively to buck, but having files there for people to try could be useful. ben On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Michael Han <h...@cloudera.com> wrote: >>> I thought we were moving to Maven at some point. Did that get sidelined? > > I think moving to maven is still the plan and there are definitely lots of > interests on this - see ZOOKEEPER-1078 > <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-1078> > > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <jor...@jordanzimmerman.com >> wrote: > >> I thought we were moving to Maven at some point. Did that get sidelined? >> >> -Jordan >> >> > On May 5, 2017, at 6:02 PM, Michael Han <h...@cloudera.com> wrote: >> > >> > 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.
