You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@hbase.apache.org by Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com> on 2011/10/09 22:03:00 UTC
Maven 2 vs. 3
So the book says to use Maven 2, rather than Maven 3. Is it just that the
docs are out of date or was there some discussion I'm missing? The only
thing I could find was that we should actually use maven 3 (
http://search-hadoop.com/m/V9sBo1Kxzab1).
I feel like Maven 3 is solid at this point (I've been building trunk with it
pretty consistently) and is pretty standard as far as industry usage.
Should I just put in a Jira for updating docs?
Thanks,
Jesse Yates
Re: Maven 2 vs. 3
Posted by Ted Dunning <td...@maprtech.com>.
Oops. Wrong group.
I don't know definitively about hbase. I was spouting off about Mahout and
hadn't noticed that your message wasn't like the previous 3 I had answered.
A few months ago, there definitely was a problem with hbase, but I have no
idea whether that is resolved.
Moving toward 3 as a policy is probably still a good thing.
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Doug Meil <do...@explorysmedical.com>wrote:
>
> Hey Ted, we were working on a ticket a few months ago and I was having
> trouble because I was working with Maven 3 and you said it wasn't
> supported (or didn't work well).
>
> If that's not the case anymore I'll update the book.
>
>
>
> On 10/9/11 4:31 PM, "Ted Dunning" <td...@maprtech.com> wrote:
>
> >The book is already slightly out of date.
> >
> >Maven 3 is better and handles almost all maven 2 builds pretty seamlessly.
> > I don't see a problem with moving forward rather than back.
> >
> >On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> So the book says to use Maven 2, rather than Maven 3. Is it just that
> >>the
> >> docs are out of date or was there some discussion I'm missing? The only
> >> thing I could find was that we should actually use maven 3 (
> >> http://search-hadoop.com/m/V9sBo1Kxzab1).
> >>
> >> I feel like Maven 3 is solid at this point (I've been building trunk
> >>with
> >> it
> >> pretty consistently) and is pretty standard as far as industry usage.
> >>
> >> Should I just put in a Jira for updating docs?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jesse Yates
> >>
>
>
Re: Maven 2 vs. 3
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 6:02 AM, Lars Francke <la...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I know it's been a while but when I last did an overhaul of the POM
> (which has been months ago) I focused on Maven 3 compatibility and it
> built perfectly with it so there was no reason to use Maven 2 ...back
> then :)
>
Good on you LarsF.
Jesse made a patch and book has been updated to recommend mvn3 now:
http://hbase.apache.org/book.html#maven.build.commands
St.Ack
Re: Maven 2 vs. 3
Posted by Lars Francke <la...@gmail.com>.
I know it's been a while but when I last did an overhaul of the POM
(which has been months ago) I focused on Maven 3 compatibility and it
built perfectly with it so there was no reason to use Maven 2 ...back
then :)
Re: Maven 2 vs. 3
Posted by Stack <st...@duboce.net>.
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Opened HBASE-4561 for doing the update in the book.
>
Thanks.
> Is the book what we are considering the gold standard or should we also
> update another source too?
>
Book is the place.
St.Ack
Re: Maven 2 vs. 3
Posted by Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com>.
Opened HBASE-4561 for doing the update in the book.
Is the book what we are considering the gold standard or should we also
update another source too?
-Jesse Yates
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Ted Dunning <td...@maprtech.com> wrote:
> It's ok. It confuses me, too.
>
> I keep wondering how I knew some of these things enough to have commented
> as
> well as the other Ted does. Then I notice that it was him.
>
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Doug Meil <doug.meil@explorysmedical.com
> >wrote:
>
> >
> > Oops... Sorry, the "Ted" in my message was aimed at Ted Yu.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/9/11 6:19 PM, "Doug Meil" <do...@explorysmedical.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Hey Ted, we were working on a ticket a few months ago and I was having
> > >trouble because I was working with Maven 3 and you said it wasn't
> > >supported (or didn't work well).
> > >
> > >If that's not the case anymore I'll update the book.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >On 10/9/11 4:31 PM, "Ted Dunning" <td...@maprtech.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>The book is already slightly out of date.
> > >>
> > >>Maven 3 is better and handles almost all maven 2 builds pretty
> > >>seamlessly.
> > >> I don't see a problem with moving forward rather than back.
> > >>
> > >>On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com>
> > >>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> So the book says to use Maven 2, rather than Maven 3. Is it just that
> > >>>the
> > >>> docs are out of date or was there some discussion I'm missing? The
> only
> > >>> thing I could find was that we should actually use maven 3 (
> > >>> http://search-hadoop.com/m/V9sBo1Kxzab1).
> > >>>
> > >>> I feel like Maven 3 is solid at this point (I've been building trunk
> > >>>with
> > >>> it
> > >>> pretty consistently) and is pretty standard as far as industry usage.
> > >>>
> > >>> Should I just put in a Jira for updating docs?
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Jesse Yates
> > >>>
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: Maven 2 vs. 3
Posted by Ted Dunning <td...@maprtech.com>.
It's ok. It confuses me, too.
I keep wondering how I knew some of these things enough to have commented as
well as the other Ted does. Then I notice that it was him.
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Doug Meil <do...@explorysmedical.com>wrote:
>
> Oops... Sorry, the "Ted" in my message was aimed at Ted Yu.
>
>
>
>
> On 10/9/11 6:19 PM, "Doug Meil" <do...@explorysmedical.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Hey Ted, we were working on a ticket a few months ago and I was having
> >trouble because I was working with Maven 3 and you said it wasn't
> >supported (or didn't work well).
> >
> >If that's not the case anymore I'll update the book.
> >
> >
> >
> >On 10/9/11 4:31 PM, "Ted Dunning" <td...@maprtech.com> wrote:
> >
> >>The book is already slightly out of date.
> >>
> >>Maven 3 is better and handles almost all maven 2 builds pretty
> >>seamlessly.
> >> I don't see a problem with moving forward rather than back.
> >>
> >>On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>> So the book says to use Maven 2, rather than Maven 3. Is it just that
> >>>the
> >>> docs are out of date or was there some discussion I'm missing? The only
> >>> thing I could find was that we should actually use maven 3 (
> >>> http://search-hadoop.com/m/V9sBo1Kxzab1).
> >>>
> >>> I feel like Maven 3 is solid at this point (I've been building trunk
> >>>with
> >>> it
> >>> pretty consistently) and is pretty standard as far as industry usage.
> >>>
> >>> Should I just put in a Jira for updating docs?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Jesse Yates
> >>>
> >
>
>
Re: Maven 2 vs. 3
Posted by Doug Meil <do...@explorysmedical.com>.
Oops... Sorry, the "Ted" in my message was aimed at Ted Yu.
On 10/9/11 6:19 PM, "Doug Meil" <do...@explorysmedical.com> wrote:
>
>Hey Ted, we were working on a ticket a few months ago and I was having
>trouble because I was working with Maven 3 and you said it wasn't
>supported (or didn't work well).
>
>If that's not the case anymore I'll update the book.
>
>
>
>On 10/9/11 4:31 PM, "Ted Dunning" <td...@maprtech.com> wrote:
>
>>The book is already slightly out of date.
>>
>>Maven 3 is better and handles almost all maven 2 builds pretty
>>seamlessly.
>> I don't see a problem with moving forward rather than back.
>>
>>On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> So the book says to use Maven 2, rather than Maven 3. Is it just that
>>>the
>>> docs are out of date or was there some discussion I'm missing? The only
>>> thing I could find was that we should actually use maven 3 (
>>> http://search-hadoop.com/m/V9sBo1Kxzab1).
>>>
>>> I feel like Maven 3 is solid at this point (I've been building trunk
>>>with
>>> it
>>> pretty consistently) and is pretty standard as far as industry usage.
>>>
>>> Should I just put in a Jira for updating docs?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jesse Yates
>>>
>
Re: Maven 2 vs. 3
Posted by Doug Meil <do...@explorysmedical.com>.
Hey Ted, we were working on a ticket a few months ago and I was having
trouble because I was working with Maven 3 and you said it wasn't
supported (or didn't work well).
If that's not the case anymore I'll update the book.
On 10/9/11 4:31 PM, "Ted Dunning" <td...@maprtech.com> wrote:
>The book is already slightly out of date.
>
>Maven 3 is better and handles almost all maven 2 builds pretty seamlessly.
> I don't see a problem with moving forward rather than back.
>
>On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> So the book says to use Maven 2, rather than Maven 3. Is it just that
>>the
>> docs are out of date or was there some discussion I'm missing? The only
>> thing I could find was that we should actually use maven 3 (
>> http://search-hadoop.com/m/V9sBo1Kxzab1).
>>
>> I feel like Maven 3 is solid at this point (I've been building trunk
>>with
>> it
>> pretty consistently) and is pretty standard as far as industry usage.
>>
>> Should I just put in a Jira for updating docs?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jesse Yates
>>
Re: Maven 2 vs. 3
Posted by Ted Dunning <td...@maprtech.com>.
The book is already slightly out of date.
Maven 3 is better and handles almost all maven 2 builds pretty seamlessly.
I don't see a problem with moving forward rather than back.
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Jesse Yates <je...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So the book says to use Maven 2, rather than Maven 3. Is it just that the
> docs are out of date or was there some discussion I'm missing? The only
> thing I could find was that we should actually use maven 3 (
> http://search-hadoop.com/m/V9sBo1Kxzab1).
>
> I feel like Maven 3 is solid at this point (I've been building trunk with
> it
> pretty consistently) and is pretty standard as far as industry usage.
>
> Should I just put in a Jira for updating docs?
>
> Thanks,
> Jesse Yates
>