Stefano Bagnara wrote: > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > All of the site docs were moved to the site tree, outside of the code > > branches. The site and related build needs to be reorganized so that > > we have a site, plus build-specific docs in its own sub-directory.
> I'm looking in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/site/trunk but I > cannot find xdocs there. :-( Sorry, they still need to be moved. They are in the tag that was the old trunk: tags/pre-v2and3-merger-trunk/src/xdocs/. > > Personally I am very much against the use of Maven with JAMES > I was talking about maven2 and not maven1. I agree with you about maven > 1 and many projects reverting to ant from maven1. Your opinion is the > same for maven2 also? I'm used to ANT, and tend to agree with one reviewer who said "Prior to ANT 1.6, ANT had enough holes that it gave an opening for Maven to exploit. Now that 1.6 is here, I see no reason for Maven to exist anymore. ANT isn't anywhere near perfect, but it's reached the critical point of good enough". See also the "Sorry to hear about Maven" thread in BSF and "Maven, help or hinderance" thread in Jakarta Commons. Mind you, Maven 2 seems to be held up as the "yes, maven sucks, but this fixes it" cure, so just as Ant improved, I'll allow that Maven could improve, too. I'd be willing to consider maven if we avoided the use of the repository, maven generated web-sites, etc. --- in other words, if we have a nice, simple, clean, self-contained, build environment. But in the end, can't we do just as well by updating our ant to the latest, and taking advantage of ant's own multi-project support? --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
