On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Bernd Fondermann<[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
not really - just establishing that there's sufficient consensus to avoid a -1 when the changes are committed on the other hand, there's work ongoing getting some upstream dependencies into the maven repositories and the james parent pom needs updating so i'd prefer to roll out gradually starting with the upstream libraries - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
