At 12:05 2/3/01 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> ( I am on the same page with Sam here, I don't like binaries in the CVS
>> tree - even if I did checked in few :-)
>
>We do it in velocity - we use junit, jdom, xerces and ant for various
>parts of our build, regression/verification testing and documentation
>processes, which are equally as important to a user as the code. (You
>will pry JUnit from my cold dead hands.. :)
>
>If you think we were going to ask them to get the sources for jdom, ant,
>xerces, and jdom to build velocity, you're nuts... :)
>
>I think that when you decide to use another piece of code as a
>component, a building block if you will, you should treat it as such -
>get the release jar, test it well, and include that in the package.
>Don't make it 'Version Wack-a-Mole'. That just leads to pain all
>around.
Danger Will Robinson ! Danger ! Prepare to don a asbestos suit ;)
This is an arguement done to death ;) Personally I would prefer to suck
down tagged binaries from a known place (ie CJAN) but until the
infrastructure is in place binaries in CVS is an ease of use issue.
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
