On Tuesday November 14 2006 11:51 am, Robert Greig wrote: > On 14/11/06, Steve Vinoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The big white elephant in the room here is that some here seem to > > want M1 to be a release of the ant-based status quo, while others > > want M1 to include maven for a variety of reasons, not the least of > > which is that it we believe it's the right way forward for the Qpid > > development community, represents how we think releases ought to be > > done, shows that we're quickly and properly learning Apache > > guidelines and practices, and avoids doing the same work two or more > > times, first in ant then in maven. > > The funamental point is that whether it is built with ant or maven > matters not one jot to our users. We would like to get M1 released so > that we can move on and start focussing on adding functionality for > M2. > > No one is debating whether we should move to maven it is only an issue > of timing. > > RG
Well, define users..... Two "potential" users, the tuscany and CXF communities, basically require the proper artifacts be available in the m2 respositories. The easiest and best way to do that is to use m2 to put them there. Thus, to meet those users, we either spend a bit of effort to "manually" put them there, hand code poms, etc... or spend a bit of effort to go all out to maven. Me: I'm completely +1 to delaying M1 until it can be produced with maven. -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer IONA P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 F:781-902-8001 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
