On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Ryan Rawson <ryano...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So given all that, I'd rather do the whole hog, rather than the half > and half thing. Ie: maven over ivy. > I'm not opposed to a move to Maven. I've not really given it much thought, but I think that a separate discussion and undertaking. It would take some work doing it properly. We would need to take on the maven layout at a minimum -- move all to src/main/java, etc. -- and we'd need to purge any deviation from the maven way because the alternative is hours burnt wandering in the weeds of poorly documented plugin xml configs., or worse, hours writing custom maven plugins to pull Maven in alternate directions. For one, our notion of contrib (src/contrib/*), IIRC, does not map to maven's notion of subprojects. Its been a while but with Maven subprojects notion, you could not without backflips have the parent project build its jar and then have subprojects depend on parent. If someone wants to take on the Maven work, well and good but for me the Ivy work is done. Lets commit it. The way it does its dependencies is Maven-like (you list them in pom for maven, in properties for ivy; both pull to local caches, etc.). Committing Ivy gets us working with external repositories, pulling and publishing. So, the ivy commit takes us some of the ways toward a mavenized hbase while meantime, making hbase build like its hosting project and its siblings. St.Ack
