Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Le 22/04/2015 00:03, Adam Heath a écrit : On 04/21/2015 04:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Le 21/04/2015 23:17, Adam Heath a écrit : On 04/21/2015 04:06 PM, Nicolas Malin wrote: Le 21/04/2015 22:37, Adam Heath a écrit : My commit is not breaking anything. Why remove something that is harmless

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

@David: Really? No, I projected a scenario that could happen if due process isn't upheld. I rather not see such a scenario unfolding. And in this case I feel the gun was jumped. While still debating over pros and cons. A bit of patience applied would not have led to that projection. And remember I

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

> From: "David E. Jones" > Subject: Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 > - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml > pom.xml > > This is an appeal to popularity, not utility. I don't think we've proven that those fail to converge over time.

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

On 04/22/2015 12:53 PM, David E. Jones wrote: On 21 Apr 2015, at 14:09, Pierre Smits wrote: Is this the path you want to walk? Code over Community? Engage in commit wars, just to force your way? Please don't! Collaborating is easier than forcing. The latter harms the project more than the fir

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

On 04/22/2015 12:52 PM, David E. Jones wrote: On 21 Apr 2015, at 14:17, Adam Heath wrote: Gradle is a non-starter. When I saw that mentioned, I actually did do some comparisons. In google, search for maven, then gradle. See how many responses each one gets. Then, go to trends.google.com,

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

> On 21 Apr 2015, at 14:09, Pierre Smits wrote: > > Is this the path you want to walk? Code over Community? Engage in commit > wars, just to force your way? Please don't! Collaborating is easier than > forcing. The latter harms the project more than the first. Really? Doing a POC and proposing

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

> On 21 Apr 2015, at 14:17, Adam Heath wrote: > > Gradle is a non-starter. When I saw that mentioned, I actually did do some > comparisons. > > In google, search for maven, then gradle. See how many responses each one > gets. > > Then, go to trends.google.com, compare the above 2 items, an

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

+1 Ron On 22/04/2015 5:25 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: The Groovy/Gradle approach enables this project to bring build/dependency management regarding base applications and optionals (special purpose/outside ASF solutions) from the CLI to an application. Increasing the user experience of those who mana

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Maven is only one of the alternatives that could be investigated. It would be nice if the people who build OFBiz every day tried to use Adam's solution before it is removed. Is it as easy to test Ant+Ivy. Ron On 22/04/2015 5:13 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: I already establised a working soluti

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

In order to give the project the best basis for reaching a sound decision (pro-con comparison between the three suggested angles - ant+ivy, gradle, maven), we could just as easily create also dev branches for the other two options and have proponents work on that so that these can also be evaluated

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

The Groovy/Gradle approach enables this project to bring build/dependency management regarding base applications and optionals (special purpose/outside ASF solutions) from the CLI to an application. Increasing the user experience of those who manage the implementation for their users. Leading to po

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

I already establised a working solution for better dependency management based on ant+ivy. Resulting in a reduction of zip size to 1/5 of the checkout at that time (35 MBs). And it seems with less effort/less complexity than is now is being shown in the OFBIZ-6172 branch... I suggested a dev branc

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Perhaps it would be a good idea for some of the key people to take a close look at what has been done. This is potentially a big step forward in modernizing the product. Having a working solution takes a lot of the FUD out of the discussion and allows the approach to be tested by the people wh

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

On Apr 21, 2015, at 10:37 PM, Adam Heath wrote: > My commit is not breaking anything. Why remove something that is harmless? Hi Adam, The fact that a commit is harmless is not enough for its approval. I know that your commit doesn't cause any side effects and I appreciate that you are now doi

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Adam, This all sounds good to me. I will have time to review your improvements after May 1. Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 4/21/2015 9:37 PM, Adam Heath wrote: On 04/21/2015 12:29 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On Apr 21, 2015, at 12:33 AM, Adam Heath wrote:

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

As another point, you keep responding with attacks, instead of discussing actual datapoints. I'm mentioning features, additions, whatever, but I see nothing constructive from your direction. Let's move back to a technical discussion, and can we have a stop of this vitriol? On 04/21/2015 05:

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

The nice thing about Maven is that very few people actually have to learn it. Once you have the pom set up and the projects structured, the maintenance is very simple and you don't really need to know Maven to do most common operations (update dependency version - change a property in the pom,

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

On 04/21/2015 04:27 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: The discussion whether or not to switch is still ongoing, is still undecided. You have made your choice. That is your prerogative. No one within this community can deny you that. But you're forcing... Your preference without consensus within/of the Com

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

On 04/21/2015 04:30 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Le 21/04/2015 23:17, Adam Heath a écrit : On 04/21/2015 04:06 PM, Nicolas Malin wrote: Le 21/04/2015 22:37, Adam Heath a écrit : My commit is not breaking anything. Why remove something that is harmless? Let's be positive and forward enabling;

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Le 21/04/2015 23:17, Adam Heath a écrit : On 04/21/2015 04:06 PM, Nicolas Malin wrote: Le 21/04/2015 22:37, Adam Heath a écrit : My commit is not breaking anything. Why remove something that is harmless? Let's be positive and forward enabling; if a commit is reverted, then that reversion has

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

The discussion whether or not to switch is still ongoing, is still undecided. You have made your choice. That is your prerogative. No one within this community can deny you that. But you're forcing... Your preference without consensus within/of the Community. You're actions don't match the respons

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

On 04/21/2015 04:06 PM, Nicolas Malin wrote: Le 21/04/2015 22:37, Adam Heath a écrit : My commit is not breaking anything. Why remove something that is harmless? Let's be positive and forward enabling; if a commit is reverted, then that reversion has not stopped any discussion, and now the

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

On 04/21/2015 04:07 PM, Heidi Dehaes wrote: Step forward to use Maven ! Easy to use. Difficult to learn. If you had asked me a week ago, at the start of ApacheCon, whether I thought a move to maven was possible, I would have gone postal; No way, hell no, not going to happen. By the end of

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Adam, Shall we let other committers, who favour the ANT+IVY approach also move forward and implement their stuff as well as it will surely not break anything as well? Shall we also let other committers, who favour the Groovy/Gradle approach also move forward and implement their solutions as well a

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Le 21/04/2015 22:37, Adam Heath a écrit : My commit is not breaking anything. Why remove something that is harmless? Let's be positive and forward enabling; if a commit is reverted, then that reversion has not stopped any discussion, and now the original committer will have to do more work t

Re: Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Step forward to use Maven ! Easy to use. Difficult to learn. Eric Olagos bvba Heidi Dehaes Kerkstraat 34 2570 Duffel Belgium Tel. : 015/31 53 04 GSM :0485/22 35 80 E-mail : info.ola...@gmail.com http://www.olagos.eu http://www.olagos.com http://www.olagos.be http://www.olagos.nl 2015-0

Long: Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

On 04/21/2015 12:29 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: On Apr 21, 2015, at 12:33 AM, Adam Heath wrote: (picking a random email to respond to; I haven't read anything of this thread all weekend, I will need to spend some time doing so) Fyi, I have framework/start, base, and entity all compiling wi

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Hi All A reminder that this is a public list and while I understand that there is a lot of heated discussions happening here - the use of swearwords or bad language is not acceptable. Thanks Sharan -- View this message in context: http://ofbiz.135035.n4.nabble.com/Re-svn-commit-r1674216-i

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Quoting: pps: I did a comparison of ant, ivy, maven, and gradle at http://trends.google.com/. Maven is the correct choice, gradle is too new. Ohh. Then we could just as well wait and sit it out to see another 'winner' rising to the top? Following the fad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fad) is a g

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

On Apr 21, 2015, at 12:33 AM, Adam Heath wrote: > (picking a random email to respond to; I haven't read anything of this thread > all weekend, I will need to spend some time doing so) > > Fyi, I have framework/start, base, and entity all compiling with maven now. > API test cases work. Separa

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

(picking a random email to respond to; I haven't read anything of this thread all weekend, I will need to spend some time doing so) Fyi, I have framework/start, base, and entity all compiling with maven now. API test cases work. Separate foo.jar and foo-test.jar are done. META-INF/services/

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Yes, managing the perception regarding 'Expert' is a smart decision. You used one of the correct means. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM * Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Mon, Ap

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

On 20/04/2015 4:15 PM, David E. Jones wrote: On 20 Apr 2015, at 12:29, Ron Wheeler wrote: On 20/04/2015 3:19 PM, David E. Jones wrote: Buildr is similar to Gradle, though Ruby-based where Gradle is Groovy-based and so has more affinity with OFBiz. Continuum is a different sort of animal, a c

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

> On 20 Apr 2015, at 12:29, Ron Wheeler wrote: > > On 20/04/2015 3:19 PM, David E. Jones wrote: >> Buildr is similar to Gradle, though Ruby-based where Gradle is Groovy-based >> and so has more affinity with OFBiz. Continuum is a different sort of >> animal, a continuous integration tool that

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

On 20/04/2015 3:19 PM, David E. Jones wrote: Buildr is similar to Gradle, though Ruby-based where Gradle is Groovy-based and so has more affinity with OFBiz. Continuum is a different sort of animal, a continuous integration tool that can run a variety of build tools. BTW, what is an expert, le

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Buildr is similar to Gradle, though Ruby-based where Gradle is Groovy-based and so has more affinity with OFBiz. Continuum is a different sort of animal, a continuous integration tool that can run a variety of build tools. BTW, what is an expert, let alone a "real" expert? A little like the ter

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Pierre is right to be cautious. It is not just s swap of one build program for another. There is a real change in the way one looks at software applications. The current mixup with the dependencies would be much harder to do under Maven. Moving to Maven would almost certainly require that this

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

I tried to express my experience with Maven and Ant I also expressed my sentiments about Gradle. I hope that my bias for build systems that impose a bit of discipline was clear. It is based on many years of software development, application support and system administration as well as recent ex

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Quoting: 'why change in the first place'. That is one of the most important question, perhaps even 'the most important' And it seems, that one isn't answered to the fullest. I like: if it aint broken, don't try to fix it'. But also 'a square peg doesn't fit in a round hole'. Is our current bui

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Assumptions are the Mother of all Fuckups, is often said. Nevertheless, bringing all viewpoints and insights together (without the assumptions and/or coloured projections) will lead to a better informed community, enabling it to take the right decision. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Sorry Pierre. I hope it did not not ruin your evening. I guess old tools are like old homes. Hard to say goodbye even if the new house fits your needs better. (Assuming that the consensus is that Ant needs replacing) Ron On 20/04/2015 2:17 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: Thanks for sharing the viewpoin

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Thanks for sharing the viewpoints. I could (just barely) suppress a physical reaction when I read 'Getting rid of ant is a good thing regardless'. Luckily we implement changes based on consensus, not the preference of the few. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM * Serv

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Maven imposes a philosophy on builds that you either follow or fight (and lose). The good side is that once you have your structure and supporting processes in place anyone who knows a little bit of Maven can run a build without looking at the pom and can add a dependency without destroying t

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Some of the build files are really ugly at the moment and difficult to read: see the macros.xml, src-extra-set etc... The ability to write real code snippets may greatly simplify them. Jacopo On Apr 20, 2015, at 7:00 PM, David E. Jones wrote: > > That gets back to the question of why change i

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

That gets back to the question of why change in the first place... build files may be smaller and easier to maintain, but there may not be a good reason! -David > On 20 Apr 2015, at 09:37, Pierre Smits wrote: > > David, > > Thanks for sharing your insights. You talk about 'pretty much anyth

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

David, Thanks for sharing your insights. You talk about 'pretty much anything can be done with'. What, in your experience, can't be done -at the moment- in relation to OFBiz? Best regards, Pierre Op maandag 20 april 2015 heeft David E. Jones het volgende geschreven: > > Not to muddy the water

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Not to muddy the waters... but Gradle might be a good alternative. There is a lot more in it than Ant that "just works" without needing to be explicit, especially when you follow Maven conventions for layout of src directories. One big upside of Gradle is that all build files are Groovy scripts

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Ant + IVY are a better fit for the OFBiz. Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM * Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professional Services and Retail & Trade http://www.orrtiz.com On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: > Ant + IVY delive

Re: discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Ant + IVY delivers as much dependency management functionality as maven does. Maven is good for building jar solutions. We don't build jar solutions. We exploit jars! Best regards, Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM * Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturing, Professiona

discussion: Move to Maven was:Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

We should seriously consider the comments from Adam and move to maven. Regards, Hans antwebsystems.com On 18/04/15 00:41, Adam Heath wrote: On 04/17/2015 10:20 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Thanks for your detailed heads-up Martin, notably your last point! I mostly agree, and indeed I also thi

Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Full external dependency management relates to something I proposed already in the beginning of 2014, see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-5464 A proof of concept established that downloads could be downsized to approx 35 mb. Something that would not only be to the benefit of adopters o

Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

On 04/17/2015 10:20 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: Thanks for your detailed heads-up Martin, notably your last point! I mostly agree, and indeed I also think Maven might not be so bad when you start anew (or are forced to use it ;) ) but for OFBiz, really NO! Jacques Le 17/04/2015 16:27, Martin

Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Thanks for your detailed heads-up Martin, notably your last point! I mostly agree, and indeed I also think Maven might not be so bad when you start anew (or are forced to use it ;) ) but for OFBiz, really NO! Jacques Le 17/04/2015 16:27, Martin Becker a écrit : +1 for lack of benefit (and for

Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Le 17/04/2015 16:27, Martin Becker a écrit : => I think the stability of Gradle is not a question as it is used by projects like Spring, Hibernate, Grails, Groovy and others… I mean the stability/differences between versions. I know some crossed (minor?) issues... Jacques

Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

+1 for lack of benefit (and for fear ;-)) My first thoughts: => If a change is desired, than Gradle would surely be a good choice as it is the next generation build tool witch tries to combine the advantages from tools like ant, maven and others… => I think the stability of Gradle is not a qu

Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Same remarks :) Maven would be interesting for some site project, but directly add on the ofbiz projet root ... Adam if you want use maven with OFBiz, maybe we can add a tools/contrib.xml use by ant who can prepare OFBiz for a specific system but not maintain by us. Like this : $ ant mvn -

Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Le 17/04/2015 12:49, Jacopo Cappellato a écrit : On Apr 17, 2015, at 4:39 AM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: Hi All, Thank you for your work but I thought we are more inclined to move to gradle based build systems given its many advantages as a full programming language build system based on groovy

Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Le 17/04/2015 13:44, Adrian Crum a écrit : +1 for a discussion. One of the things I despise about working with Commons Convert is the labyrinth of Maven files and dependencies. It's a complicated black box that I can't understand, and when something doesn't work, I don't know how to fix it.

Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

+1 for a discussion. One of the things I despise about working with Commons Convert is the labyrinth of Maven files and dependencies. It's a complicated black box that I can't understand, and when something doesn't work, I don't know how to fix it. I hope OFBiz doesn't end up the same way.

Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

On Apr 17, 2015, at 3:35 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Anyway I think we should really discuss before going in this direction. +1 So please revert this commit, before it is another dead weight. Pierre Smits *ORRTIZ.COM * Services & Solutions for Cloud- Based Manufacturin

Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

On Apr 17, 2015, at 4:39 AM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: > Hi All, > > Thank you for your work but I thought we are more inclined to move to gradle > based build systems given its many advantages as a full programming language > build system based on groovy. > > Taher Alkhateeb I agree: we coul

Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

+1! We should have very strong reasons to make this move. Michael ecomify.de Am 17.04.15 um 10:35 schrieb Jacques Le Roux: After installing and setting last Maven version (3.3.1) this does not work well on Windows (I miss the maven-compiler-plugin I guess) Anyway I think we should really dis

Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

apache.org, doo...@apache.org Sent: Friday, 17 April, 2015 11:35:04 AM Subject: Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml After installing and setting last Maven version (3.3.1) this does not work well on Windows (I miss the maven-compiler-plugin I guess) Anyw

Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

On Apr 17, 2015, at 3:35 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: > Anyway I think we should really discuss before going in this direction. +1 Jacopo

Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

After installing and setting last Maven version (3.3.1) this does not work well on Windows (I miss the maven-compiler-plugin I guess) Anyway I think we should really discuss before going in this direction. I, for instance, am strongly against moving to Maven when we have Ant already embedded an

Re: svn commit: r1674216 - in /ofbiz/trunk: framework/start/pom.xml pom.xml

Do you intend to convert to use Maven for building? I mean to replace Ant? Else what does this add compared to Ant? BTW are you aware of our policy of creating Jira in order to capture releases changes? https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/OFBiz+Committers+Roles+and+Responsibilit