Hi,
the developers list may not be the right place to find strong maven
supporters. All developers know lucene from inside out and are perfectly fine
to install lucene from whatever artifact.
Those people using maven are your end users, that propably don't even
subscribe to users@.
Thomas
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Thomas Koch tho...@koch.ro wrote:
Hi,
the developers list may not be the right place to find strong maven
supporters. All developers know lucene from inside out and are perfectly fine
to install lucene from whatever artifact.
Those people using maven are your
Out of curiosity, how did the Maven people integrate Lucene before we had
Maven artifacts. To the best of my understanding, we never had proper Maven
artifacts (Steve is working on that in LUCENE-2657).
Shai
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Simon Willnauer
simon.willna...@googlemail.com wrote:
Somehow, they were made available since 2.0
- http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/lucene/lucene-core/
The pom's are minimal, sans dependencies, so eg if your project
depends on lucene-spellchecker, lucene-core won't be transitively
included and your build is gonna fail (you therefore had to
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Hardy Ferentschik s...@ferentschik.de wrote:
It also means that someone outside the dev community will at some stage
create some
pom files and upload the artifact to a (semi-) public repository.
This sounds great! this is how open source works, those who care
More than one build tools is not way to go, I believe everyone agrees
on that, and that it's not an issue.
Have you guys at least considered making a switch to a build tool that
knows to produce maven artifacts (or enhancing exiting one to take
care of that)? E.g. ant+ivy, gradle, maven itself.
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 6:56 AM, Stevo Slavić ssla...@gmail.com wrote:
More than one build tools is not way to go, I believe everyone agrees
on that, and that it's not an issue.
Have you guys at least considered making a switch to a build tool that
knows to produce maven artifacts (or
It seems to me that if we have a fix for the things that ail our Maven support
(Steve's work), that it isn't then the reason for holding up a release and we
should just keep them as there are a significant number of users who consume
Lucene that way (via the central repository). I agree that
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 17:00, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
It seems to me that if we have a fix for the things that ail our Maven
support (Steve's work), that it isn't then the reason for holding up a
release
I still don't see why you care so much. You have people willing to maintain it
and it is no sweat off your back and it is used by a pretty large chunk of
downstream users. And don't tell me it is what holds up releases b/c it simply
isn't true.
On Jan 18, 2011, at 9:12 AM, Robert Muir
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
I still don't see why you care so much. You have people willing to maintain
it and it is no sweat off your back and it is used by a pretty large chunk of
downstream users. And don't tell me it is what holds up
On Jan 18, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
there is a very loud minority that care about maven,
most of us that think the situation is ridiculous have totally given
up arguing about it, except me, i don't want to put out a shitty
release with broken maven artifacts like in the past,
On Jan 18, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
I still don't see why you care so much. You have people willing to maintain
it and it is no sweat off your back and it is used by a pretty large chunk
of
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll open my arms to first class maven the first time it sees the light of
consensus ;)
thats the main thing missing from releasing maven artifacts... looking
at previous threads I don't really see consensus that we
On 1/18/2011 at 11:34 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'll open my arms to first class maven the first time it sees the light
of consensus ;)
thats the main thing missing from releasing maven artifacts... looking
at
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Steven A Rowe sar...@syr.edu wrote:
There clearly is no consensus for removing Maven support from Lucene.
and see there is my problem, there was no consensus to begin with, now
suddenly its de-facto required. Maven is quite an insidious computer
virus.
On 1/18/11 9:13 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
I can't help but remind myself, this is the same argument Oracle
offered up for the whole reason hudson debacle
(http://hudson-labs.org/content/whos-driving-thing)
Declaring that I have a secret pocket of users that want XYZ isn't
open source consensus.
On 1/18/2011 at 12:14 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Steven A Rowe sar...@syr.edu wrote:
There clearly is no consensus for removing Maven support from Lucene.
and see there is my problem, there was no consensus to begin with, now
suddenly its de-facto required.
On Jan 18, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
I guess we could try to figure out how many people download the
artifacts from m2 repos. Maybe they have download statistics?
But then what? What number would justify stopping to publish?
Michael
Realistically, I would expect that
On Jan 18, 2011, at 12:28 PM, Steven A Rowe wrote:
On 1/18/2011 at 12:14 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Steven A Rowe sar...@syr.edu wrote:
There clearly is no consensus for removing Maven support from Lucene.
and see there is my problem, there was no consensus
On 1/18/11 10:44 AM, Mark Miller wrote:
From my point of view, but perhaps I misremember:
At some point, Grant or someone put in some Maven poms.
I did. :) It was a ton of work and especially getting the
maven-ant-tasks to work was a nightmare!
I don't think anyone else really paid
On 1/18/2011 at 1:45 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
At some point, Grant or someone put in some Maven poms. I don't think
anyone else really paid attention. Later, as we did releases, and saw and
dealt with these poms, most of us commented against Maven support. It just
feels to me like it slipped in
On Jan 18, 2011, at 2:37 PM, Steven A Rowe wrote:
On 1/18/2011 at 1:45 PM, Mark Miller wrote:
At some point, Grant or someone put in some Maven poms. I don't think
anyone else really paid attention. Later, as we did releases, and saw and
dealt with these poms, most of us commented against
On Jan 18, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
So can you explain what the problem with the maven support is? Isn't it
enough to just call the ant target and copying the generated files somewhere?
When I did releases I never thought it made the release any harder. Just
two
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Mark Miller markrmil...@gmail.com wrote:
If I remember right, a large reason Robert is against is that he doesn't want
to sign/support/endorse something he doesn't understand or care about as a
Release Manager? But thats probably a major simplification of his
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Michael Busch busch...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what's so complicated or mysterious about maven artifacts. A
maven artifact consists of normal jar file(s) plus a POM file containing
some metadata, like the artifact name and group.
its the POM files that
To follow up Steven:
Yes - Maven is part of Lucene now - it got in with lazy consensus or whatever
method - and now it's basically a first class citizen. I would have to get
consensus to drop it much more than you would have to get consensus to keep it.
This is exactly why I don't want it to
On Jan 18, 2011, at 12:13 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
I can't help but remind myself, this is the same argument Oracle
offered up for the whole reason hudson debacle
(http://hudson-labs.org/content/whos-driving-thing)
Declaring that I have a secret pocket of users that want XYZ isn't
open
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
On Jan 18, 2011, at 12:13 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
I can't help but remind myself, this is the same argument Oracle
offered up for the whole reason hudson debacle
(http://hudson-labs.org/content/whos-driving-thing)
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
On Jan 18, 2011, at 12:13 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
I can't help but remind myself, this is the same argument Oracle
offered up for the whole reason hudson debacle
(http://hudson-labs.org/content/whos-driving-thing)
On Jan 18, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
On Jan 18, 2011, at 12:13 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
I can't help but remind myself, this is the same argument Oracle
offered up for the whole reason hudson debacle
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
In other words, I don't see consensus for dropping it. When you have it, get
back to me.
Thats not how things are added to the release process.
So currently, maven is not included in the release process.
I don't
It's sad how aggressive these discussions get. There's really no reason.
On 1/18/11 1:10 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Grant Ingersollgsing...@apache.org wrote:
In other words, I don't see consensus for dropping it. When you have it, get
back to me.
Thats not how
Why not vote for or against 'maven artifacts'?
http://www.doodle.com/2qp35b42vstivhvx
I'm using lucene+solr a lot times via maven.
Elasticsearch uses lucene via gradle.
Solandra uses lucene via ivy and so on ;)
So maven artifacts are not only very handy for maven folks.
But I think no artifacts
On Jan 18, 2011, at 4:10 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
In other words, I don't see consensus for dropping it. When you have it,
get back to me.
Thats not how things are added to the release process.
So currently,
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
It's just software and we have people willing to maintain the Maven stuff. I
simply don't get what the big deal is in keeping something that people find
useful and has (enough) committer support.
Why not call a
On Jan 18, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
It's just software and we have people willing to maintain the Maven stuff.
I simply don't get what the big deal is in keeping something that people
find useful and
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
On Jan 18, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Grant Ingersoll gsing...@apache.org wrote:
It's just software and we have people willing to maintain the Maven stuff.
I simply don't
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 20:13, Robert Muir rcm...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately there is a very loud minority that care about maven
I would wager that there is a sizable silent *majority* of users who
literally depend on Lucene's Maven artifacts.
I can't help but remind myself, this is the
On 1/17/2011 at 1:53 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
I don't think any user needs the ability to run an ant target on
Lucene's sources to produce maven artifacts
I want to be able to make modifications to the Lucene source, install Maven
snapshot artifacts in my local repository, then depend on those
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Steven A Rowe sar...@syr.edu wrote:
On 1/17/2011 at 1:53 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
I don't think any user needs the ability to run an ant target on
Lucene's sources to produce maven artifacts
I want to be able to make modifications to the Lucene source,
You're not alone. :)
But, I bet, much more people would like to skip that step and have
their artifacts downloaded from central.
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 19:06, Steven A Rowe sar...@syr.edu wrote:
On 1/17/2011 at 1:53 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
I don't think any user needs the ability to run an
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Earwin Burrfoot ear...@gmail.com wrote:
You're not alone. :)
But, I bet, much more people would like to skip that step and have
their artifacts downloaded from central.
Maybe, but perhaps they will need to compromise and use jar files or
install into their
On Jan 17, 2011, at 8:06 AM, Steven A Rowe wrote:
On 1/17/2011 at 1:53 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
I don't think any user needs the ability to run an ant target on
Lucene's sources to produce maven artifacts
I want to be able to make modifications to the Lucene source, install Maven
snapshot
On 1/17/2011 at 11:25 AM, Robert Muir wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Steven A Rowe sar...@syr.edu wrote:
On 1/17/2011 at 1:53 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
I don't think any user needs the ability to run an ant target on
Lucene's sources to produce maven artifacts
I want to be able
On 1/17/11 8:06 AM, Steven A Rowe wrote:
On 1/17/2011 at 1:53 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
I don't think any user needs the ability to run an ant target on
Lucene's sources to produce maven artifacts
I want to be able to make modifications to the Lucene source, install Maven
snapshot artifacts in
On 1/17/2011 at 3:05 PM, Michael Busch wrote:
On 1/17/11 8:06 AM, Steven A Rowe wrote:
On 1/17/2011 at 1:53 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
I don't think any user needs the ability to run an ant target on
Lucene's sources to produce maven artifacts
I want to be able to make modifications to the
On 1/17/11 12:27 PM, Steven A Rowe wrote:
This makes zero sense to me - no one will ever make their own POMs
I did :) (for a different project though).
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For
Hey
Wearing on my rebel hat today, I'd like to propose we drop maven support
from our release process / build system. I've always read about the maven
artifacts never being produced right, and never working (or maybe never is a
too harsh word).
I personally don't understand why we struggle to
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Shai Erera ser...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey
Wearing on my rebel hat today, I'd like to propose we drop maven support
from our release process / build system. I've always read about the maven
artifacts never being produced right, and never working (or maybe never
-1 from me on dropping Maven artifacts.
I find it curious that on the verge of fixing the broken Maven artifacts
situation (LUCENE-2657), there is a big push for a divorce.
Robert, I agree we should have a way to test the magic artifacts. I'm
working on it. Your other objection is the work
Well ... you raise interesting points. So if a committer would be willing to
support GIT, RTC, and whatever (just making up scenarios), would we allow
all of those to exist within Lucene?
I think the reasonable solution is to have a modules/maven package, with
build.xml that generates whatever
Maven is a defacto package/dependency manager for Java. Like it or not.
All better tools out there, like Ant+Ivy, or SBT - support Maven repositories.
Lots of people rely on Maven or better tools for their builds and as
soon as you're on declarative dependency management train, it's a
bother to
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Earwin Burrfoot ear...@gmail.com wrote:
Lots of people rely on Maven or better tools for their builds and as
soon as you're on declarative dependency management train, it's a
bother to just take a bunch of jars and stuff 'em into your project.
Sure, and i bet
Hello Lucene/Solr developers,
Speaking from Lucene/Solr user - potential contributor perspective, my
votes are:
-1 for dropping maven artifacts (even +1 for extending number of maven
artifacts https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1218 )
+1 for using maven as build tool
Regards,
Stevo.
uggg -- sorry to see this thread flare up again -- especially since
Steve is actively making great progress on better maven support --
including integration tests and all that jazz. (LUCENE-2657)
I *think* the consensus from the last thread was:
1. the release manager does not need to worry
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Ryan McKinley ryan...@gmail.com wrote:
uggg -- sorry to see this thread flare up again -- especially since
Steve is actively making great progress on better maven support --
including integration tests and all that jazz. (LUCENE-2657)
I *think* the consensus
I don't understand what's so complicated about having an ant maven target
in a modules/maven package that generates whatever artifacts are needed. It
can be used by whoever wants to use Maven. Why do we need to release those
artifacts? If maven is so important to people, then let's keep it under
On Jan 16, 2011, at 11:21 PM, Shai Erera wrote:
Release-wise though, as long as running ant test from top-level dir ends
with BUILD SUCCESSFUL, the release should be good to go. We should publish
the Source, Javadocs and .Jar files. While I agree the latter is not strictly
mandatory, I
On 1/16/11 11:08 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
I think the reasonable solution is to have a modules/maven package,
with build.xml that generates whatever needs to be generated. Whoever
cares about maven should run the proper Ant targets, just like whoever
cares about Eclipse/IDEA can now run ant
60 matches
Mail list logo
