Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 5:47 AM, Eric MacAdie<[email protected]> wrote: >> How will James be built going forward? Will Maven or Ant be the preferred >> build tool? Will one be used for maintaining 2.X and another for 3? > > a controversial question so i'll try to explain the consensus as i see > it (hopefully anyone who disagrees will jump in) > > 2.x is stable and changes will be kept minimal. so ant will remain the > preferred build tool and maven only used to build the website. > > for the james 3.x server code base, it's controversial. both are > supported and maintained.
I'm supportive for moving the 3.x server build to maven, too. Finally. It's breaking my heart, but better to break my heart than the project. ;-) Do we need a vote? Bernd > > for the 3.x libraries which have been factored out, we're moving > towards maven (it has much better OSGi support and can be maintained > with less duplication) > > - robert > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
