I'm in. Let's rename the pom.xml to something different. Jarcec
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:42:48AM -0800, [email protected] wrote: > Thanks Jarcec. I agree that if we are not going to support maven on trunk > for now, we should close the related issues you pointed out. > > Regarding publishing of maven artifacts for Sqoop - that is still possible. > I understand that using IVY you can generate the necessary POM artifacts. I > believe Bilung recently did that exercise while doing the 1.4.0 release. > > Thanks, > Arvind > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Hi Arvind, > > Netbeans seems to be unable to process differently named pom.xml file. > > However I can rename it back on my side manually, so I'm fine with simple > > rename. > > > > If we officially discontinue our effort to move to maven build in 1.x (and > > I definitely agree on that), I would also suggest to somehow close issues > > regarding move to maven: > > > > * SQOOP-348 > > * SQOOP-347 > > * SQOOP-306 > > > > Also I'm curios whether we are able to push our artifacts to Apache Maven > > repo as is requested in SQOOP-396 without proper pom.xml file? > > > > Jarcec > > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:22:20AM -0800, Arvind Prabhakar wrote: > > > In that case, how about renaming the pom.xml to something else? You > > > would you still be able to use it using the -f argument. Would that > > > work? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Arvind > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Jarek Jarcec Cecho > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Please don't, I'm actually using it :-$ > > > > > > > > Jarcec > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 09:48:59AM -0800, Arvind Prabhakar wrote: > > > >> Agreed. As a matter of fact, we should remove POM from the 1.x branch > > > >> as it is confusing to many. > > > >> > > > >> I have filed SQOOP-408 to track this. > > > >> Thanks,Arvind > > > >> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Eric Wadsworth <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> > Arvind, > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks for the info! > > > >> > > > > >> > Perhaps there should be a comment in the pom explaining this. > > > >> > > > > >> > --- wad > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On 12/12/2011 09:06 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Hi Eric, > > > >> >> > > > >> >> For the 1.x code line (trunk), we are not investing in fixing the > > > >> >> maven build. Instead the focus is entirely on using ant. Once we > > cut > > > >> >> over to the next major revision, we will switch to a maven only > > build. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Thanks, > > > >> >> Arvind > > > >> >> > > > >> >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Eric Wadsworth<[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> Folks, > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> Sqoop builds with ant just fine. The tests pass ("ant test"). > > This goes > > > >> >>> against hadoop 0.23; at least, that's what shows up in the ivy > > > >> >>> directories. > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> But in the pom.xml, there is a different dependency: > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> <!-- > > > >> >>> <hadoopVersion>0.20.203.0</hadoopVersion> > > > >> >>> --> > > > >> >>> <!-- FIXME Cloudera Distribution dependency version --> > > > >> >>> <hadoopVersion>0.20.2-cdh3u1</hadoopVersion> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> Out of the box, I can build with maven, with just a couple of > > tweaks > > > >> >>> (skipping tests because one fails, rm CHANGES.txt to make the RAT > > happy). > > > >> >>> But if I switch to the other version of hadoop, I get lots of > > errors. > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> Why the discrepancy between ant and mvn builds? Or am I missing > > > >> >>> something? > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> --- wad > > > >> > > > > >> > > >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
