On 13-01-11 12:47, Tom Hobbs wrote:
Personally, I feel a sense of "if it's not broken...". I think it was
Dan (but maybe not) who said that the build is the way it is because
"it works".
Exactly. Before we step into a new build system, we should first
determine what is actually wrong with the current build system.
But that aside, does using something other than Ant give a tangible
benefit? If "yes", then I have no objection.
Exactly, if there are big benefits, then i would accept another system.
Now we have a system where many have invested their time in, and are we
going to throw this away?
The work to move to Maven has already been done, yes?
Maven as a way to deliver the jars to users of river i have no problem
with. I see no benefit in building river with maven.
Do we want to support 2 build systems?
A thousand times "no". :-)
+1
PS: The effect on me, these new build systems in the pipeline, have a
paralyzing effect. I looked at the build graph of river, and saw
cosmetic problem, and thought, why should i put the time in to fix it,
now, to have the ant system ripped out in a months time?
Gr. Sim
--
QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397
