Well, it can't hurt to look, and if you're offering to do the work ;). Once you have something done we can all evaluate it and then put it to a vote.
-James On Tue, 2004-10-19 at 03:53, Thomas Draier wrote: > hi james, > if you're interested i would be happy to try to make the base structure > and project files for the different slide subprojects - i agree that > all developers still have to download and install maven, and that it's > real turn off, but it is more or less as simple as ant to install and > imho the benefits are so huge you quickly become addict :-) > thomas > > Le 18 oct. 04, � 18:03, James Mason a �crit : > > > Thomas, > > > > I need to spend some time playing with maven before I could support > > moving to it. I really like ant, so if maven enhances what ant brings > > I'm all for that. However, as a developer who's never had maven > > installed it's been a real turn-off for me to come across a project > > that > > requires me to download and setup a whole new environment just to build > > their code. > > > > If maven is simple enough to setup and integrates well enough with the > > existing development environments of the committers/contributors to > > Slide, then changing build systems is a possibility. > > > > -James > > > > On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 03:47, Thomas Draier wrote: > >> hi, > >> i still have 2 patches waiting in the bugzilla , 31196 & 31265 , can > >> anybody have a look at it before changing the structure ? > >> restructuration of the cvs would be great - and that also would be > >> very > >> nice to use maven to make the builds, as it completely clarifies > >> dependencies with other modules, that is very helpful when integrating > >> in other projects, and it gives a "standard" file organization for all > >> the project files. maven is replacing ant in more and more projects > >> and > >> i believe that would be the good time to integrate it into slide, what > >> do you think ? > >> thomas > >> > >> Le 18 oct. 04, � 09:24, Oliver Zeigermann a �crit : > >> > >>> +1 to all this. > >>> > >>> I think we could begin restructuring the CVS HEAD soon - just make > >>> sure everyone committed their patches before - and have it avaiable > >>> for general release in 2.2 > >>> > >>> Oliver > >>> > >>> James Mason schrieb: > >>> > >>>> Big +1 from me. Your thread in the PMC actually got me thinking > >>>> along > >>>> similar lines. I'd like to take it a little further than just > >>>> separate > >>>> release cycles, though. > >>>> Currently the Slide project is structured something like: > >>>> +- Slide Server > >>>> \ > >>>> +- Slide Client > >>>> +- Proposals > >>>> +- Everything else (etc) > >>>> which means everything is effectively a child of the server. I'd > >>>> like > >>>> to > >>>> make the Server a sibling of everything else rather than being the > >>>> parent. I think this better reflects the current state of the > >>>> project, > >>>> gives more prominence to the other components, and will make builds > >>>> easier to manage. > >>>> I'd like to see this structure reflected in both cvs and the > >>>> documentation/website. I think the former will make builds/release > >>>> easier and the latter will make it easier for people to find what > >>>> they're looking for (as well as giving more prominence to the other > >>>> components). > >>>> I think this kind of separation would also provide a good gauge of > >>>> whether Slide could stand on its own as a TLP. At this point I don't > >>>> think we could (nor do we need to), but if we can organize the > >>>> complexity we currently have and make it clear how current and > >>>> future > >>>> components fit under the Slide umbrella I think we'll be mostly > >>>> ready > >>>> if/when there is enough external interest in Slide to warrant a TLP. > >>>> -James > >>>> On Sun, 2004-10-17 at 22:35, Oliver Zeigermann wrote: > >>>>> Folks, > >>>>> > >>>>> Slide has become a large project with lots of components. > >>>>> > >>>>> After some experience with the testsuite which until 2.1b2 has not > >>>>> been released at all and the projector which did not make it into > >>>>> the 2.1b2, but seems to be almost ready for prime time, it might be > >>>>> a good idea to release at least these components in a decoupled > >>>>> release process: > >>>>> > >>>>> - projector: WebDAV workflow and rendering > >>>>> - testsuite: most complete WebDAV testsuite > >>>>> - wck: simple WebDAV enabling kit for enterprise / business systems > >>>>> of all kinds > >>>>> - WebDAV client library (maybe along with ant tasks and connector) > >>>>> - WebDAV command line cient > >>>>> > >>>>> I only recently understood this is possible without any problem and > >>>>> would make the release cycle - which is HUGE for Slide because of > >>>>> its complexity - much shorter. We still could have a general and a > >>>>> bundled release once in a while. But projector could release > >>>>> earlier > >>>>> than the general Slide 2.2 which can not be expected before 2005. > >>>>> Same thing with WCK, it is at least ready for a beta, but of course > >>>>> can not be part of the 2.1 release, so it would have to wait until > >>>>> 2005 as well. I have big expectations in WCK concerning a boost in > >>>>> publicity for Slide... > >>>>> > >>>>> Additionally, the server and client parts may have different > >>>>> development speeds, and might be release asynchronously, which is > >>>>> fine as they communicate over WebDAV (2.1 has been an exception as > >>>>> new methods have been added). > >>>>> > >>>>> We would need additional release managers for each component then. > >>>>> This could all be James, but that would be unfair I guess. So, I > >>>>> would propose Daniel for the projector, Stefan for the testsuite, > >>>>> myself for wck, and Ingo for the client parts. James would remain > >>>>> to > >>>>> be the general release manager. > >>>>> > >>>>> Of course all this would be on a volunteer base and if there is no > >>>>> release manager for each sub component obviously there is no > >>>>> interest for a dedicated release. For now I can only signal my > >>>>> willingness to do this for WCK. I am pretty sure Daniel would for > >>>>> projector. > >>>>> > >>>>> Comments? Does this make sense? Do you people want this as well? > >>>>> > >>>>> Oliver > >>>>> > >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> -- > >>>>> 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] > >>> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> 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] > >> > >> > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
