You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> on 2006/07/17 23:53:50 UTC
Re: svn commit: r422640 - /geronimo/configs/
Hey Jason,
These paths were used by the Continuum builds on GBuild. For example
the "Geronimo 1.2 :: Configs" build used geronimo/configs. So, at the
moment the configs, applications, and assembly phases of the G 1.2
build are broken.
I've never really cared for separating the build steps on Continuum
(eg, modules, applications, configs, and assembly). I don't think
separating them gives us much, if any benefit, and may actually cause
some confusion... AFAIK, there's nothing that insures subsequent
build phases (e.g. assembly) runs after a modules build. Also, I
don't think there's anything to insure proper build order -- I'd
hacked the current projects to build in the proper order by renaming
the assembly project to "Z Assembly". I'd just as soon always run a
full build even if only a config plan has changed.
So, unless I hear any objections. I'm going to delete the existing
Continuum Geronimo 1.2 projects and have just one Geronimo 1.2
project that runs a full Geronimo build.
--kevan
On Jul 17, 2006, at 2:45 AM, jdillon@apache.org wrote:
> Author: jdillon
> Date: Sun Jul 16 23:45:15 2006
> New Revision: 422640
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=422640&view=rev
> Log:
> Drop this unused path
>
> Removed:
> geronimo/configs/
>
Re: svn commit: r422640 - /geronimo/configs/
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:22 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
> What was the purpose of the property file that was contained there?
>
> Sorry... I will get all of the CI bits cleaned up soon...
They were kind of build configuration overrides (another reason I
didn't care for splitting up the build phases). For instance,
geronimo/assemblies/project.properties would exclude the assembly of
the installer. The installer assembly expected a full geronimo source
tree to be checked out and only the assembly tree would be checked
out for the assembly project. This type of "hack" is yet another
reason to be I'd rather do away with splitting up the build.
--kevan
> On Jul 17, 2006, at 2:53 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>> Hey Jason,
>> These paths were used by the Continuum builds on GBuild. For
>> example the "Geronimo 1.2 :: Configs" build used geronimo/configs.
>> So, at the moment the configs, applications, and assembly phases
>> of the G 1.2 build are broken.
>>
>> I've never really cared for separating the build steps on
>> Continuum (eg, modules, applications, configs, and assembly). I
>> don't think separating them gives us much, if any benefit, and may
>> actually cause some confusion... AFAIK, there's nothing that
>> insures subsequent build phases (e.g. assembly) runs after a
>> modules build. Also, I don't think there's anything to insure
>> proper build order -- I'd hacked the current projects to build in
>> the proper order by renaming the assembly project to "Z Assembly".
>> I'd just as soon always run a full build even if only a config
>> plan has changed.
>>
>> So, unless I hear any objections. I'm going to delete the existing
>> Continuum Geronimo 1.2 projects and have just one Geronimo 1.2
>> project that runs a full Geronimo build.
>>
>> --kevan
>>
>> On Jul 17, 2006, at 2:45 AM, jdillon@apache.org wrote:
>>
>>> Author: jdillon
>>> Date: Sun Jul 16 23:45:15 2006
>>> New Revision: 422640
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=422640&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Drop this unused path
>>>
>>> Removed:
>>> geronimo/configs/
>>>
>>
>
Re: svn commit: r422640 - /geronimo/configs/
Posted by Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>.
What was the purpose of the property file that was contained there?
Sorry... I will get all of the CI bits cleaned up soon...
--jason
On Jul 17, 2006, at 2:53 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> Hey Jason,
> These paths were used by the Continuum builds on GBuild. For
> example the "Geronimo 1.2 :: Configs" build used geronimo/configs.
> So, at the moment the configs, applications, and assembly phases of
> the G 1.2 build are broken.
>
> I've never really cared for separating the build steps on Continuum
> (eg, modules, applications, configs, and assembly). I don't think
> separating them gives us much, if any benefit, and may actually
> cause some confusion... AFAIK, there's nothing that insures
> subsequent build phases (e.g. assembly) runs after a modules
> build. Also, I don't think there's anything to insure proper build
> order -- I'd hacked the current projects to build in the proper
> order by renaming the assembly project to "Z Assembly". I'd just as
> soon always run a full build even if only a config plan has changed.
>
> So, unless I hear any objections. I'm going to delete the existing
> Continuum Geronimo 1.2 projects and have just one Geronimo 1.2
> project that runs a full Geronimo build.
>
> --kevan
>
> On Jul 17, 2006, at 2:45 AM, jdillon@apache.org wrote:
>
>> Author: jdillon
>> Date: Sun Jul 16 23:45:15 2006
>> New Revision: 422640
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=422640&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Drop this unused path
>>
>> Removed:
>> geronimo/configs/
>>
>
Re: svn commit: r422640 - /geronimo/configs/
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jul 17, 2006, at 6:12 PM, Sachin Patel wrote:
> I agree.
>
> Is there a way to import a project into Continuum and only have a
> single project created using the root pom that does a full build,
> rather then one for every pom?
Well, you can always add as a "shell" project, rather than as maven 1
or 2 project. That's how a fair number of our existing projects were
added.
--kevan
>
> On Jul 17, 2006, at 5:53 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>> Hey Jason,
>> These paths were used by the Continuum builds on GBuild. For
>> example the "Geronimo 1.2 :: Configs" build used geronimo/configs.
>> So, at the moment the configs, applications, and assembly phases
>> of the G 1.2 build are broken.
>>
>> I've never really cared for separating the build steps on
>> Continuum (eg, modules, applications, configs, and assembly). I
>> don't think separating them gives us much, if any benefit, and may
>> actually cause some confusion... AFAIK, there's nothing that
>> insures subsequent build phases (e.g. assembly) runs after a
>> modules build. Also, I don't think there's anything to insure
>> proper build order -- I'd hacked the current projects to build in
>> the proper order by renaming the assembly project to "Z Assembly".
>> I'd just as soon always run a full build even if only a config
>> plan has changed.
>>
>> So, unless I hear any objections. I'm going to delete the existing
>> Continuum Geronimo 1.2 projects and have just one Geronimo 1.2
>> project that runs a full Geronimo build.
>>
>> --kevan
>>
>> On Jul 17, 2006, at 2:45 AM, jdillon@apache.org wrote:
>>
>>> Author: jdillon
>>> Date: Sun Jul 16 23:45:15 2006
>>> New Revision: 422640
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=422640&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Drop this unused path
>>>
>>> Removed:
>>> geronimo/configs/
>>>
>>
>
>
> -sachin
>
>
Re: svn commit: r422640 - /geronimo/configs/
Posted by Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>.
I agree.
Is there a way to import a project into Continuum and only have a
single project created using the root pom that does a full build,
rather then one for every pom?
On Jul 17, 2006, at 5:53 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> Hey Jason,
> These paths were used by the Continuum builds on GBuild. For
> example the "Geronimo 1.2 :: Configs" build used geronimo/configs.
> So, at the moment the configs, applications, and assembly phases of
> the G 1.2 build are broken.
>
> I've never really cared for separating the build steps on Continuum
> (eg, modules, applications, configs, and assembly). I don't think
> separating them gives us much, if any benefit, and may actually
> cause some confusion... AFAIK, there's nothing that insures
> subsequent build phases (e.g. assembly) runs after a modules
> build. Also, I don't think there's anything to insure proper build
> order -- I'd hacked the current projects to build in the proper
> order by renaming the assembly project to "Z Assembly". I'd just as
> soon always run a full build even if only a config plan has changed.
>
> So, unless I hear any objections. I'm going to delete the existing
> Continuum Geronimo 1.2 projects and have just one Geronimo 1.2
> project that runs a full Geronimo build.
>
> --kevan
>
> On Jul 17, 2006, at 2:45 AM, jdillon@apache.org wrote:
>
>> Author: jdillon
>> Date: Sun Jul 16 23:45:15 2006
>> New Revision: 422640
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=422640&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Drop this unused path
>>
>> Removed:
>> geronimo/configs/
>>
>
-sachin
Re: svn commit: r422640 - /geronimo/configs/
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
On Jul 17, 2006, at 2:53 PM, Kevan Miller wrote:
> Hey Jason,
> These paths were used by the Continuum builds on GBuild. For
> example the "Geronimo 1.2 :: Configs" build used geronimo/configs.
> So, at the moment the configs, applications, and assembly phases of
> the G 1.2 build are broken.
>
> I've never really cared for separating the build steps on Continuum
> (eg, modules, applications, configs, and assembly). I don't think
> separating them gives us much, if any benefit, and may actually
> cause some confusion...
The history of that is that it was added as a compromise. I had just
gotten our first continuum install running the same time David J.
split up the build into TranQL (new0, new00), Geronimo "Main" (new1),
OpenEJB (new2), G Apps (new3), G Configs (new4), and G Assemblies
(new5).
If Mr. Jencks is ok with it, I'm fine seeing it go from continuum.
-David