Hi guys,
I switched to:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/sandbox/trunk-mvn-build/
and prepare a set of update for OSGi.
Unfortunately, it seems that the sandbox is not open to all committer:
git svn dcommit
Committing to
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/sandbox/trunk-mvn-build
Hello,
Distro is now ok (at least for unix platform) (common-daemon and
tomcat-native now included).
Some unit test has been fixed (was broken due to path changes), I'm
now at 45 failures on 533 tests (some path changes to fix).
Now I have some fixes to do:
* version build date in docs included
On 22/12/2011 13:48, Olivier Lamy wrote:
In o.a.t.u.m.Registry with changing
private ModelerSource getModelerSource( String type )
throws Exception
{
if( type==null ) type=MbeansDescriptorsDigesterSource;
//if( type.indexOf( ) 0 ) {
if
Hello,
2011/12/23 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org:
On 22/12/2011 13:48, Olivier Lamy wrote:
In o.a.t.u.m.Registry with changing
private ModelerSource getModelerSource( String type )
throws Exception
{
if( type==null ) type=MbeansDescriptorsDigesterSource;
On 23/12/2011 12:58, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hello,
2011/12/23 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org:
On 22/12/2011 13:48, Olivier Lamy wrote:
In o.a.t.u.m.Registry with changing
private ModelerSource getModelerSource( String type )
throws Exception
{
if( type==null )
2011/12/23 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org:
On 23/12/2011 12:58, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hello,
2011/12/23 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org:
On 22/12/2011 13:48, Olivier Lamy wrote:
In o.a.t.u.m.Registry with changing
private ModelerSource getModelerSource( String type )
throws
On 23/12/2011 15:13, Olivier Lamy wrote:
2011/12/23 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org:
On 23/12/2011 12:58, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hello,
2011/12/23 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org:
On 22/12/2011 13:48, Olivier Lamy wrote:
In o.a.t.u.m.Registry with changing
private ModelerSource
On 12/21/2011 07:16 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
There hasn't been any activity on this thread for a little while.
I don't recall any significant arguments one way or the other for using
Nexus or scp+rsync.
Since Jean-Frederic has switched all the Maven artifact release scripts
to use Nexus, I
On 22/12/2011 09:17, jean-frederic clere wrote:
On 12/21/2011 07:16 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
There hasn't been any activity on this thread for a little while.
I don't recall any significant arguments one way or the other for using
Nexus or scp+rsync.
Since Jean-Frederic has switched all the
Hello,
I have added the distro packaging (commons-daemon* and
tomcat-native.tar.gz not yet done).
I still have weird issues which I don't' yet understand:
when runing unit test
from the top module
mvn clean install -Dtest=TestCompositeELResolver
GRAVE: Error loading
In o.a.t.u.m.Registry with changing
private ModelerSource getModelerSource( String type )
throws Exception
{
if( type==null ) type=MbeansDescriptorsDigesterSource;
//if( type.indexOf( ) 0 ) {
if (type.length()0) {
David,
On 12/19/11 1:47 PM, David Jencks wrote:
As I have said before in previous iterations of this topic, IMO many
of the advantages of maven are not for direct development of the project
itself (although they certainly exist) but in encouraging interactions
with other projects and
Two cents from a side
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 11:21 PM, Sylvain Laurent
sylvain.laur...@m4x.org wrote:
On 20 déc. 2011, at 12:22, Mark Thomas wrote:
Where I disagree is on whether a switch to Maven lowers that barrier to
entry. I agree it lowers it for folks that already know Maven but don't
There hasn't been any activity on this thread for a little while.
I don't recall any significant arguments one way or the other for using
Nexus or scp+rsync.
Since Jean-Frederic has switched all the Maven artifact release scripts
to use Nexus, I intend to do the following:
- See what happens
Hello,
I have started some stuff here: https://github.com/olamy/tomcat70.
* sources have been to appropriate modules.
* I'm now working on some test which fail (some tests need webapp examples)
* distro not yet done.
* repackaging of dbcp pool, commons-logging is done using shading technology
* I
Hi all,
I just discussed with Olivier about that.
I will help OSGiing Tomcat. I would like to enhance Pax Web to be able
to support both Jetty (as currently) and Tomcat using OSGi service selector.
I plan to push the OSGi changes tomorrow on the Olivier's github.
Regards
JB
On 12/21/2011
On 12/21/2011 09:34 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hello,
I have started some stuff here: https://github.com/olamy/tomcat70.
We must at least create 7.1.x branch for such a crucial change.
Otherwise no one will be able to apply custom patches to the exiting code base.
BTW, Oliver, it looks really
On 21/12/2011 21:21, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 12/21/2011 09:34 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hello,
I have started some stuff here: https://github.com/olamy/tomcat70.
We must at least create 7.1.x branch for such a crucial change.
I'm not sure we need a new branch if the end result is going to be
On 12/21/2011 10:24 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 21/12/2011 21:21, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 12/21/2011 09:34 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hello,
I have started some stuff here: https://github.com/olamy/tomcat70.
We must at least create 7.1.x branch for such a crucial change.
I'm not sure we need a
On 21/12/2011 21:57, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 12/21/2011 10:24 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 21/12/2011 21:21, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 12/21/2011 09:34 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hello,
I have started some stuff here: https://github.com/olamy/tomcat70.
We must at least create 7.1.x branch for such a
On 12/21/2011 11:01 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 21/12/2011 21:57, Mladen Turk wrote:
In essence no packages will be able to change the version
unless he rewrites the .spec or debian files from scratch thought.
Ouch. That is argument for only doing this in trunk, if we do it at all.
Right. Up
+1
- Romain
2011/12/20 David Jencks david_jen...@yahoo.com
On Dec 19, 2011, at 1:06 PM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
On 12/19/2011 07:47 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Are you reading the thread? I mentioned dec 17 that geronimo has
been maintaining a script for 2+ years that pulls tomcat
2011/12/19 Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org
On 12/19/2011 07:04 PM, Henri Gomez wrote:
Exactly. Since any change would require a learning curve
and it seems we don't have that many (read none) maven
experts in the house, Gradle could be equally considered,
given that it seems more advanced in
2011/12/19 David Jencks david_jen...@yahoo.com
Are you reading the thread? I mentioned dec 17 that geronimo has been
maintaining a script for 2+ years that pulls tomcat source out of tomcat
svn and puts it in an appropriately structured maven mutli-project build
and we've been re-releasing
On 12/20/2011 08:58 AM, David Jencks wrote:
did this work and suggested tomcat look at it several years ago, and
don't remember all the details, some other people have been
maintaining it recently. IIRC the maven projects generate pretty
much the same jars as the ant build, possibly plus one
On 12/20/2011 09:17 AM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2011/12/19 Mladen Turkmt...@apache.org
On 12/19/2011 07:04 PM, Henri Gomez wrote:
Exactly. Since any change would require a learning curve
and it seems we don't have that many (read none) maven
experts in the house, Gradle could be equally
2011/12/20 jean-frederic clere jfcl...@gmail.com
On 12/20/2011 09:17 AM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2011/12/19 Mladen Turkmt...@apache.org
On 12/19/2011 07:04 PM, Henri Gomez wrote:
Exactly. Since any change would require a learning curve
and it seems we don't have that many (read none)
2011/12/19 Pid p...@pidster.com
On 18/12/2011 08:37, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 12/17/2011 09:24 PM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
As requested here is a proposal to move to Maven.
I simply cannot understand why some folks have
almost religious fascination with Maven.
I know many projects
2011/12/20 Antonio Petrelli antonio.petre...@gmail.com:
2011/12/20 jean-frederic clere jfcl...@gmail.com
On 12/20/2011 09:17 AM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2011/12/19 Mladen Turkmt...@apache.org
On 12/19/2011 07:04 PM, Henri Gomez wrote:
Exactly. Since any change would require a learning
2011/12/20 Antonio Petrelli antonio.petre...@gmail.com:
2011/12/19 Pid p...@pidster.com
On 18/12/2011 08:37, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 12/17/2011 09:24 PM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
As requested here is a proposal to move to Maven.
I simply cannot understand why some folks have
almost
2011/12/20 Konstantin Kolinko knst.koli...@gmail.com
The current version of m2e(clipse) in its default configuration
(re)downloads 200Mb index file from Maven Central into my workspace,
hanging IDE in the process.
Never seen that... Or, at least, it does not hang.
Ant is surely easier to
On 20/12/2011 03:21, David Jencks wrote:
Thanks for your brevity, Mark On Dec 19, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Mark
Thomas wrote:
I'll try and keep this response short too, but these are non-trivial
issues...
On 19/12/2011 18:47, David Jencks wrote:
I mentioned dec 17 that geronimo
has been
2011/12/20 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
If there is an easy way to create these in Maven and creating them with
the Ant script is difficult / painful / error prone, then that would be
an argument in favour of Maven. How strong that argument is would depend
on how easy it was to do this with
On 20/12/2011 07:58, David Jencks wrote:
I think the benefit might be more on the order of encouraging people
who ask where did this jar come from-- I wanna fix something. For
people familiar with maven, there is IMO a much higher barrier to
contributing to tomcat than a well-structured
On 20/12/2011 08:17, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2011/12/19 Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org
On 12/19/2011 07:04 PM, Henri Gomez wrote:
Exactly. Since any change would require a learning curve
and it seems we don't have that many (read none) maven
experts in the house, Gradle could be equally
On 20/12/2011 09:05, Olivier Lamy wrote:
2011/12/20 Antonio Petrelli antonio.petre...@gmail.com:
Whoops! I had to do it before :-)
First of all, Git is read-only at Apache:
http://git.apache.org/
In this page there are many Gitted projects for Tomcat. My current fork is
for Tomcat 7:
2011/12/20 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 20/12/2011 09:05, Olivier Lamy wrote:
2011/12/20 Antonio Petrelli antonio.petre...@gmail.com:
Whoops! I had to do it before :-)
First of all, Git is read-only at Apache:
http://git.apache.org/
In this page there are many Gitted projects for
2011/12/20 Antonio Petrelli antonio.petre...@gmail.com
2011/12/20 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 20/12/2011 09:05, Olivier Lamy wrote:
2011/12/20 Antonio Petrelli antonio.petre...@gmail.com:
Whoops! I had to do it before :-)
First of all, Git is read-only at Apache:
On 20/12/2011 08:38, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2011/12/19 Pid p...@pidster.com
On 18/12/2011 08:37, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 12/17/2011 09:24 PM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
As requested here is a proposal to move to Maven.
I simply cannot understand why some folks have
almost religious
Another good thing in gradle is its incremental build support.
- Romain
2011/12/20 Pid p...@pidster.com
On 20/12/2011 08:38, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2011/12/19 Pid p...@pidster.com
On 18/12/2011 08:37, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 12/17/2011 09:24 PM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
As requested
On 20 déc. 2011, at 12:22, Mark Thomas wrote:
Where I disagree is on whether a switch to Maven lowers that barrier to
entry. I agree it lowers it for folks that already know Maven but don't
know Ant but that it raises it for folks that know Ant but don't know Maven.
Knowing ant does not
2011/12/18 Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org
On 12/17/2011 09:24 PM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
As requested here is a proposal to move to Maven.
I simply cannot understand why some folks have
almost religious fascination with Maven.
In fact I feel as a Maven evangelist.
There is a thing that I
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 17/12/2011 20:24, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
Ok, let's do it again :-D
1. Standardization. Maven strongly encourages to use a standardized
structure. The source should go into src/main/java, the resources in
src/main/resources etc. You can change
Hello,
2011/12/18 jean-frederic clere jfcl...@gmail.com:
On 12/17/2011 07:55 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
Personally, I am of the view If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If there
was something we would gain by switching to Maven then I'd be interested
but given we have an established build process
You see features where I see benefits of the features, asking the same
question again and again shows your hate, and probably you hate me too,
because I love Maven.
No problem, you'll lose at some point :-D
Using Maven for Tomcat has been many times discussed here, each time
with a no go.
On 18 December 2011 18:03, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/17/11 11:42 AM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 17/12/2011 18:35, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 17/12/2011 18:14, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
Ok
On 19 December 2011 08:36, Antonio Petrelli antonio.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 17/12/2011 20:24, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
Ok, let's do it again :-D
1. Standardization. Maven strongly encourages to use a standardized
structure. The source should go
2011/12/19 sebb seb...@gmail.com
On 19 December 2011 08:36, Antonio Petrelli antonio.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 17/12/2011 20:24, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
Ok, let's do it again :-D
1. Standardization. Maven strongly encourages to use a
From: Antonio Petrelli [mailto:antonio.petre...@gmail.com]
Subject: Re: Move to Maven? (WAS: Re: Publishing process for JARs for Maven
Central)
Switching to a single source tree was one of the
best changes we ever made. It has been much easier
to manage than the multiple source trees
On 19 December 2011 14:16, Antonio Petrelli antonio.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/12/19 sebb seb...@gmail.com
On 19 December 2011 08:36, Antonio Petrelli antonio.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 17/12/2011 20:24, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
Ok, let's
2011/12/19 sebb seb...@gmail.com:
On 19 December 2011 14:16, Antonio Petrelli antonio.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2011/12/19 sebb seb...@gmail.com
On 19 December 2011 08:36, Antonio Petrelli antonio.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 17/12/2011 20:24,
2011/12/19 Caldarale, Charles R chuck.caldar...@unisys.com
From: Antonio Petrelli [mailto:antonio.petre...@gmail.com]
Subject: Re: Move to Maven? (WAS: Re: Publishing process for JARs for
Maven Central)
Switching to a single source tree was one of the
best changes we ever made. It has
+1. But I'm no fan of maven to begin with.
-- Ian
- Reply message -
From: Caldarale, Charles R chuck.caldar...@unisys.com
To: Tomcat Developers List dev@tomcat.apache.org
Subject: Move to Maven? (WAS: Re: Publishing process for JARs for Maven Central)
Date: Mon, Dec 19, 2011 09:41
I
On 18/12/2011 08:37, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 12/17/2011 09:24 PM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
As requested here is a proposal to move to Maven.
I simply cannot understand why some folks have
almost religious fascination with Maven.
I know many projects that have move from Ant to
Maven and are
On 12/19/2011 06:12 PM, Pid wrote:
On 18/12/2011 08:37, Mladen Turk wrote:
On 12/17/2011 09:24 PM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
As requested here is a proposal to move to Maven.
I simply cannot understand why some folks have
almost religious fascination with Maven.
I know many projects that
Exactly. Since any change would require a learning curve
and it seems we don't have that many (read none) maven
experts in the house, Gradle could be equally considered,
given that it seems more advanced in customization.
I know well Maven but Olivier (Lamy) is a Maven expert, so there is
On 12/19/2011 07:04 PM, Henri Gomez wrote:
Exactly. Since any change would require a learning curve
and it seems we don't have that many (read none) maven
experts in the house, Gradle could be equally considered,
given that it seems more advanced in customization.
I know well Maven but Olivier
Are you reading the thread? I mentioned dec 17 that geronimo has been
maintaining a script for 2+ years that pulls tomcat source out of tomcat svn
and puts it in an appropriately structured maven mutli-project build and we've
been re-releasing quite a few tomcat versions using this technique.
On 19/12/2011 18:47, David Jencks wrote:
Are you reading the thread? I mentioned dec 17 that geronimo has
been maintaining a script for 2+ years that pulls tomcat source out
of tomcat svn and puts it in an appropriately structured maven
mutli-project build and we've been re-releasing quite a
On 19/12/2011 08:36, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 17/12/2011 20:24, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
Ok, let's do it again :-D
1. Standardization. Maven strongly encourages to use a standardized
structure. The source should go into src/main/java, the resources
Hi,
i agree on the fact maven is technically more complicated than an ant
script but let say you know both maven and ant, your ant script is very
complicated to do almost nothing useful. (ok i prefer maven ;)).
For newcomers i think it is important. Maven stuff can be almost hidden by
a good
On 12/19/2011 07:47 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Are you reading the thread? I mentioned dec 17 that geronimo has been maintaining a
script for 2+ years that pulls tomcat source out of tomcat svn and puts it in an
appropriately structured maven mutli-project build and we've been re-releasing quite
Here we speak that we should replace entire Tomcat
build system with maven, meaning, multiple arches, creating
windows installer, etc. I don't see any of those in Geronimo.
Why no do it step by step and produce with Maven what's produced today by Ant ?
All I'm saying, if you can do it,
There is a big part of tomcat which doesn't need maven because it doesn't
need to be standard (the installers are a great example).
I spoke about the common part which is today not obvious because of the
false modularity of the project.
- Romain
2011/12/19 Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org
On
On 19/12/2011 09:42, Henri Gomez wrote:
There is many reasons to use Maven instead of Ant :
* Better startup bootstrap for new comers, mvn package won't require
hack in build.properties, it just works out of the box.
No it won't. At least not until Eclipse publish the JDT complier JAR to
On 12/19/2011 08:58 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
There is a big part of tomcat which doesn't need maven because it doesn't
need to be standard (the installers are a great example).
Installer is just ant exec task with some filtering
for getting the versions correctly.
We have multiple
because developers can't know both?
we use both on OpenEJB (ok the ant part is small but it is used through the
maven plugin).
I don't know if it is because i used more maven than ant but when i checked
out tomcat the first time i wondered where was modules (corresponding to
jars). I was doing
On 12/19/2011 09:13 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
I don't know if it is because i used more maven than ant but when i checked
out tomcat the first time i wondered where was modules (corresponding to
jars).
OK, this is the first thing I can agree with you. But It has nothing
to do with toolkit
On 12/19/2011 07:47 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Are you reading the thread? I mentioned dec 17 that geronimo has
been maintaining a script for 2+ years that pulls tomcat source out
of tomcat svn and puts it in an appropriately structured maven
mutli-project build and we've been re-releasing quite a
i needed to dig into tomcat for some bugs regarding TCKs. That's why i
needed more.
- Romain
2011/12/19 jean-frederic clere jfcl...@gmail.com
On 12/19/2011 07:47 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Are you reading the thread? I mentioned dec 17 that geronimo has
been maintaining a script for 2+ years
Thanks for your brevity, Mark
On Dec 19, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 19/12/2011 18:47, David Jencks wrote:
Are you reading the thread? I mentioned dec 17 that geronimo has
been maintaining a script for 2+ years that pulls tomcat source out
of tomcat svn and puts it in an
On 12/19/2011 09:13 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
because developers can't know both?
Since it seems you are familiar with maven, what is your
opinion about maven ant tasks?
Seems to me it offers full power of Ant, almost seamless
transition, with the option to use maven deploy and
Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote:
i needed to dig into tomcat for some bugs regarding TCKs. That's why i
needed more.
- Romain
What did you need that the published JARs and source JARs didn't give you?
Mark
-
To
On Dec 19, 2011, at 1:06 PM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
On 12/19/2011 07:47 PM, David Jencks wrote:
Are you reading the thread? I mentioned dec 17 that geronimo has
been maintaining a script for 2+ years that pulls tomcat source out
of tomcat svn and puts it in an appropriately structured
On 12/17/2011 07:55 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
Personally, I am of the view If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If there
was something we would gain by switching to Maven then I'd be interested
but given we have an established build process with Ant that a number of
committers are familiar with and
On 12/17/2011 09:24 PM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
As requested here is a proposal to move to Maven.
I simply cannot understand why some folks have
almost religious fascination with Maven.
I know many projects that have move from Ant to
Maven and are now either switched back or gone to
some
On 12/17/11 11:42 AM, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 17/12/2011 18:35, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 17/12/2011 18:14, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
Ok then interprete my words as: now you can use a staging repository.
This
On 17 December 2011 05:19, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/16/11 12:56 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
All,
There are currently two options for publishing JARs to Maven Central:
1. scp+rsync via people.a.o
2. Nexus
Personally, my only requirements are:
a) that the JARs reach Maven
On Dec 17, 2011, at 6:44 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 December 2011 05:19, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/16/11 12:56 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
All,
There are currently two options for publishing JARs to Maven Central:
1. scp+rsync via people.a.o
2. Nexus
2011/12/16 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
There are currently two options for publishing JARs to Maven Central:
1. scp+rsync via people.a.o
2. Nexus
In my experience in Tiles releases, the only problem we had with scp +
simple copy (we did not use rsync) is that this process breaks Maven
On 17/12/2011 18:08, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2011/12/16 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
There are currently two options for publishing JARs to Maven Central:
1. scp+rsync via people.a.o
2. Nexus
In my experience in Tiles releases, the only problem we had with scp +
simple copy (we did not
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 17/12/2011 18:08, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2011/12/16 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
There are currently two options for publishing JARs to Maven Central:
1. scp+rsync via people.a.o
2. Nexus
In my experience in Tiles releases, the only
On 17/12/2011 18:14, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
Ok then interprete my words as: now you can use a staging repository.
This way, artifacts may be tested *before* they are released.
The scp+rsync process also has a staging repository (and using that did
not cause any meta-data issues).
The JARs are
On 16/12/2011 19:56, Mark Thomas wrote:
All,
There are currently two options for publishing JARs to Maven Central:
1. scp+rsync via people.a.o
2. Nexus
Personally, my only requirements are:
a) that the JARs reach Maven Central
b) publishing is as simple as running a single script
I
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 17/12/2011 18:14, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
Ok then interprete my words as: now you can use a staging repository.
This way, artifacts may be tested *before* they are released.
The scp+rsync process also has a staging repository (and using that did
On 17/12/2011 18:35, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 17/12/2011 18:14, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
Ok then interprete my words as: now you can use a staging repository.
This way, artifacts may be tested *before* they are released.
The scp+rsync process also
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 17/12/2011 18:35, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 17/12/2011 18:14, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
Ok then interprete my words as: now you can use a staging repository.
This way, artifacts may be tested *before*
On 17/12/2011 18:42, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 17/12/2011 18:35, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 17/12/2011 18:14, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
Ok then interprete my words as: now you can use a staging repository.
This
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 17/12/2011 18:42, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 17/12/2011 18:35, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
On 17/12/2011 18:14, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
Ok then interprete my words
On 17/12/2011 19:10, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
Personally, I am of the view If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If there
was something we would gain by switching to Maven then I'd be interested
but given we have an established build process with Ant that a
As requested here is a proposal to move to Maven.
2011/12/17 Mark Thomas ma...@apache.org
Using Maven has several benefits (standardization of structure, lots of
reusable plugins, supported by major IDEs),
Those are features, not benefits.
The standardization of structure is not a
On 17/12/2011 20:24, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
Ok, let's do it again :-D
1. Standardization. Maven strongly encourages to use a standardized
structure. The source should go into src/main/java, the resources in
src/main/resources etc. You can change it, but this is discouraged. With
Ant you
I'll try to keep it short because I really don't want to spend time re-beating
this dead horse.
The last time I looked a couple years ago the jars constructed out of the
single source tree could not be compiled separately in any order. I was told
this wasn't a problem, at which point I
2011/12/17 Antonio Petrelli antonio.petre...@gmail.com:
If you release to a staging directory, the Maven metadata (containg info
about previous releases) are not there, so they are created from scratch.
So, after releasing in the staging directory and voting, the copy method
simply overwrite
On 17/12/2011 21:43, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
2011/12/17 Antonio Petrelli antonio.petre...@gmail.com:
If you release to a staging directory, the Maven metadata (containg info
about previous releases) are not there, so they are created from scratch.
So, after releasing in the staging directory
On 17/12/2011 21:12, David Jencks wrote:
I'll try to keep it short because I really don't want to spend time
re-beating this dead horse.
The last time I looked a couple years ago the jars constructed out of
the single source tree could not be compiled separately in any order.
I was told
On 17/12/2011 21:59, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 17/12/2011 21:12, David Jencks wrote:
I'll try to keep it short because I really don't want to spend time
re-beating this dead horse.
The last time I looked a couple years ago the jars constructed out of
the single source tree could not be compiled
I forgot to mention that geronimo has been re-releasing several versions of
tomcat built with maven. We have a script to set up a maven multi module
project structure and distribute the tomcat source code from tomcat svn into
the maven projects. This stuff is under
On 12/17/2011 07:27 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
Jean-Frederic, what was your motivation for moving Tomcat to Nexus?
1 - The good thing in Nexus is that we can check the result of our
deploy-release and drop is we screw it (multi upload can fail and we
don't know when the mirroring stars).
2 -
All,
There are currently two options for publishing JARs to Maven Central:
1. scp+rsync via people.a.o
2. Nexus
Personally, my only requirements are:
a) that the JARs reach Maven Central
b) publishing is as simple as running a single script
I don't particularly care about the details. As long
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
