On Feb 12, 2014, at 6:06 PM, Dennis Reedy wrote:
> Greg,
>
> Discussion ensues.
>
> A little tangent here that might be of interest. I worked on modularizing
> Blitz with Dawid Loubser, if you're interested in seeing how that ended up
> (pretty much follows the conventions being discussed),
Greg,
Discussion ensues.
A little tangent here that might be of interest. I worked on modularizing Blitz
with Dawid Loubser, if you're interested in seeing how that ended up (pretty
much follows the conventions being discussed), check it out here
https://github.com/DawidLoubser/blitz-javaspac
Hi Dennis:
Some discussion inline…
Greg Trasuk
On Feb 12, 2014, at 4:16 PM, Dennis Reedy wrote:
> Greg,
>
> I think how the River project is structured, built and tested becomes a
> recipe for how developers that use River can begin to create their own
> projects. So IMO its something to c
Greg,
I think how the River project is structured, built and tested becomes a recipe
for how developers that use River can begin to create their own projects. So
IMO its something to care about. As you point out, the current approach is
based on decisions made over a decade ago and there are re
Hi all:
I’d just like to sound a quiet note of caution here.
Everyone seems to be in agreement that the current build structure is
problematic. After all, it was fundamentally designed around the ‘make’ tool
15 years ago.
However… Altering the build structure and switching to a new tool (
On Feb 12, 2014, at 2:08 AM, Peter Firmstone wrote:
Not that I have any strong opinions on Maven vs Gradle, but aren’t you
conflating build system with Configuration provider? I don’t see how the
presence of a GroovyConfiguration provider has any influence on whether Gradle,
Maven, or Ant sh
Hi folks - if we could separate out the build structure discussion from the
River-432 vote, that’d be great :-)
Greg.
On Feb 12, 2014, at 5:31 AM, Simon IJskes - QCG wrote:
> On 12-02-14 11:28, Simon IJskes - QCG wrote:
>> Ok,
>>
>> what i have seen is:
>>
>> - maven / gradle / ivy
>> - co
