You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com> on 2008/04/29 22:09:08 UTC
Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Just a new thread to discuss about mavenizing Tomcat (OSGI Thread is
allready fully loaded and really interesting).
Costin told us he didn't want to change the current source layout.
Alternative to mavenizing tomcat could be :
- add subdirs (for modules) and pom.xml and hack the source files
filters to get only what's required.
- create a root pom and subdirs/pom.xml, and an ant task to fill a
mavenized targets directories where a standard maven build will be
done.
Any more ideas or advices ?
Regards
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 22:09 +0200, Henri Gomez wrote:
> > Just a new thread to discuss about mavenizing Tomcat (OSGI Thread is
> > allready fully loaded and really interesting).
> >
> > Costin told us he didn't want to change the current source layout.
> >
> > Alternative to mavenizing tomcat could be :
> >
> > - add subdirs (for modules) and pom.xml and hack the source files
> > filters to get only what's required.
> >
> > - create a root pom and subdirs/pom.xml, and an ant task to fill a
> > mavenized targets directories where a standard maven build will be
> > done.
> >
> > Any more ideas or advices ?
>
> -1 for any change to the build in Tomcat 6.0.
>
I agree with Remy - adding a new directory and any xml/data inside is
probably fine, but
adding support for Maven ( or Make or any other build tool ) shouldn't
require changes to
the current build - i.e. if you have to change build.xml or move files
around ( for the purpose
of supporting maven or any other tool ) - something is wrong with the tool.
Costin
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <de...@hanik.com>.
Yoav Shapira wrote:
> Filip, this is a fairly rare case where I disagree with you ;)
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists
> <de...@hanik.com> wrote:
>
>> simply because it requires changes, I like to think we work according to
>>
>
> It can be done without requiring any changes.
>
>
>> "if it aint broke, don't fix it", and since the maven build doesn't give us
>> anything the ANT build already does, then there seems to be little point of
>>
>
> It's easier. That's it.
>
>
>> I suggest you go back in the archives, the comments you'll see this time
>> around, will be the same when this issue was brought up last and was voted
>>
>
> Not true. I, for one, spoke against it in the past. Having used
> Maven 2 for 2+ years, I now prefer it over Ant. Moreover, I can
> testify that it's saved me and my teams considerable time and resulted
> in more consistent and cleaner builds. I haven't even bothered to
> subscribe to users@maven.a.o, much less dev@maven.a.o, I've just been
> a pure user and it's been cool.
>
> But like I said earlier, it's not worth disrupting the current Tomcat
> build or source layout. Only if it can be done without requiring any
> changes, which it can.
>
correct, and if it doesn't add any value add, which is what the
discussion was before,
then it seems like just one more set of build scripts to maintain.
Filip
> Yoav
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com>.
Good Thanks
2008/5/5 Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>:
> Costin Manolache wrote:
>
> >
> > > From Rainer's email few days ago:
> > >
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk/
> >
> > I suppose after it's in it may be backported to the stable branches if it
> > works well and people like it.
> >
>
> Exactly.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Costin Manolache wrote:
>>>From Rainer's email few days ago:
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk/
>
> I suppose after it's in it may be backported to the stable branches if it
> works well and people like it.
Exactly.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com>.
>From Rainer's email few days ago:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk/
I suppose after it's in it may be backported to the stable branches if it
works well and people like it.
Costin
On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Providing in is just adding a directory/file or two then trunk is the
> place
> > for it.
>
> Only adding files and directories
>
> > If it requires re-organisation of the source tree (which if I have have
> > understood the discussion to date it doesn't) it should probably go in a
> new
> > branch.
>
> No reorganisation of code, as said in the thread.
>
> Question is which trunk ?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com>.
> Providing in is just adding a directory/file or two then trunk is the place
> for it.
Only adding files and directories
> If it requires re-organisation of the source tree (which if I have have
> understood the discussion to date it doesn't) it should probably go in a new
> branch.
No reorganisation of code, as said in the thread.
Question is which trunk ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
any Manolache wrote:
> BTW - can someone remove ever.sac@higienebeleza.com.br from tomcat-dev ?
being done now.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com>.
BTW - can someone remove ever.sac@higienebeleza.com.br from tomcat-dev ?
It's quite annoying, after each mail I get an auto-reply from them... I
don't think I have karma to do it.
Costin
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <
> devlists@hanik.com> wrote:
>
> > Costin Manolache wrote:
> >
> > > Aren't we in 'comit then review' mode for the trunk ?
> > >
> > > My understanding was that RTC is in effect for the stable releases,
> > > but not
> > > the trunk,
> > > and if there is no controversy ( and so far I think the only major
> > > issues
> > > was 'don't touch file structure or break ant' ) - he can just submit.
> > >
> > >
> > if that was the case, the old trunk would have never been moved to
> > sandbox,
> > that trunk was moved to sandbox based on code that never got a veto, -1.
>
>
> I'm confused - there is a tomcat6/trunk repo - isn't this the trunk ?
>
> I know there are different things in sandbox - and that's all fine for
> things that are bigger
> or controversial changes - but not sure how a project can work without a
> trunk ( unless
> tomcat is dead and moved to maintainance only - but I don't remember that
> announcement )
>
>
>
> > I think the group has been careful lately, and always discussing changes
> > to a consensus even before committing to trunk to avoid conflicts like that
> > last one, which got quite ugly, even though it was just following CTR.
>
>
>
> Well, it is common sense to discuss changes that affect core functionality
> before committing, and I think we ( and any other
> reasonably active project ) had plenty of conflicts and debates.
>
> I remember a vote to do RTC for stable - and I think it passed, but I
> don't remember any "remove the trunk"
> or "RTC on the trunk". If it happened - maybe it's time to have another
> discussion and reopen the trunk for CTR
> and active development.
>
> While most of tomcat works 'well enough', I think there is enough interest
> in making tomcat more modular -
> and I'm planning to propose some sandbox->trunk moves as well.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > in terms of the maven stuff, I don't fully believe that it is non
> > intrusive yet. if it means adding poms everywhere in our java source code
> > directory structure, i would consider that intrusive.
>
>
> I would agree - I think what Henri is doing is create a build/maven
> directory with poms under it.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Sorry, I haven't been paying attention to all the rule changes - if
> > > someone
> > > could
> > > post the short version, I'm quite interested - I plan to re-start
> > > contributing few things and it
> > > would be good to know the process.
> > >
> > >
> > consensus is always good to have, dont think we have fully recovered
> > from the last episode yet to the point where we can just CTR anything
>
>
> Sure - but that doesn't mean every small change needs to follow a formal
> process and vote. It's still an open source project
> that's supposed to be fun :-).
>
> Costin
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > and listen to me, I was the one that marked revolutionary :)
> >
> >
> > Filip
> >
> > Costin
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <
> > > devlists@hanik.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Costin Manolache wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <
> > > > > devlists@hanik.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Costin Manolache wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > We already have eclipse files checked in AFAIK - that counts
> > > > > > > as the
> > > > > > > second
> > > > > > > build system.
> > > > > > > We used to have makefiles too, also in parallel with ant (in
> > > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > > times).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The goal IMO is that people who like to type mvn can do it -
> > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > guarantee that
> > > > > > > the result will be identical with the official release or will
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > maintained
> > > > > > > long term, just like
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > isn't that the culprit, including a feature under the pretenses
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > wont be maintained?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > I meant 'maintained' in the apache-sense, of having 3 +1, etc. (
> > > > > which
> > > > > AFAIK
> > > > > is required for
> > > > > something to be 'officially' released ).
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm sure Henri will maintain it - and at some point it may even
> > > > > have
> > > > > the 3
> > > > > +1s. As long as there is
> > > > > no technical reason for a veto ( besides the 'don't break existing
> > > > > build' -
> > > > > which I think he addressed ),
> > > > > I don't see how to stop him. I don't like Maven - but I think
> > > > > as
> > > > > long
> > > > > as it doesn't break anything
> > > > > Henri is perfectly entitled to work on this.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > absolutely correct, and it should follow the guidelines of voting
> > > > just
> > > > like everything else
> > > > 1+ means I support and intend to help
> > > > if you just support it, but are not planning on doing the work, then
> > > > the
> > > > vote is +0 :)
> > > >
> > > > Henri is more than welcome to make the proposal, no one is stopping
> > > > him
> > > > from doing so.
> > > >
> > > > Filip
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Costin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Filip
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the eclipse project can run but it's quite different from the
> > > > > > official
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > build.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If it's making easier for some people to build tomcat - and it
> > > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > affect people who use
> > > > > > > ant in any way - what's the harm ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Costin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Remy Maucherat <
> > > > > > > remm@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 22:28 -0400, Yoav Shapira wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Remy Maucherat <
> > > > > > > > > remm@apache.org>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The current build scripts are fully tested and work well.
> > > > > > > > > Adding
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > additional methods of building or replacing these
> > > > > > > > > > scripts
> > > > > > > > > > altogether
> > > > > > > > > > would only provide ways to create and/or release broken
> > > > > > > > > > binaries.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Again, no one is saying anything about touching the
> > > > > > > > > current
> > > > > > > > > build
> > > > > > > > > scripts, build process, release process, or source
> > > > > > > > > structure.
> > > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > > those remain the same. The job of the release manager
> > > > > > > > > remains
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is just an alternative for those people who want to
> > > > > > > > > use a
> > > > > > > > > slightly easier / user-friendlier build system. We could
> > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > worse
> > > > > > > > > than lowering the barrier to entry for new contributors.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You mean you type "mvn" instead of "ant" ? I agree te keys
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > > > together on my keyboard, so it could indeed be easier.
> > > > > > > > Personally,
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > did
> > > > > > > > have a first hand experience with Maven, and I think it's
> > > > > > > > horrible
> > > > > > > > (you
> > > > > > > > have no clue what it is doing, error reporting is bad, and
> > > > > > > > basically,
> > > > > > > > you have to think and act the tool's way).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I disagree with having two separate build systems, there's
> > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > guarantee
> > > > > > > > of equivalence.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Rémy
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > > > > > > Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database:
> > > > > > > > 269.23.6/1404 -
> > > > > > > > Release Date: 4/29/2008 6:27 PM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Henri Gomez wrote:
> Question :
>
> Where should be commited (for review), the stuff for mavenization ?
Providing in is just adding a directory/file or two then trunk is the place
for it.
If it requires re-organisation of the source tree (which if I have have
understood the discussion to date it doesn't) it should probably go in a
new branch.
Mark
>
> I'll have some time next week to works on
>
> 2008/5/1 Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>:
>> Costin Manolache schrieb:
>>
>>
>>> I'm confused - there is a tomcat6/trunk repo - isn't this the trunk ?
>>>
>> trunk: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk/
>> Tomcat 6.0.x: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Rainer
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com>.
Question :
Where should be commited (for review), the stuff for mavenization ?
I'll have some time next week to works on
2008/5/1 Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>:
> Costin Manolache schrieb:
>
>
> > I'm confused - there is a tomcat6/trunk repo - isn't this the trunk ?
> >
>
> trunk: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk/
> Tomcat 6.0.x: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/
>
> Regards,
>
> Rainer
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Rainer Jung <ra...@kippdata.de>.
Costin Manolache schrieb:
> I'm confused - there is a tomcat6/trunk repo - isn't this the trunk ?
trunk: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/trunk/
Tomcat 6.0.x: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/tomcat/tc6.0.x/trunk/
Regards,
Rainer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <de...@hanik.com>
wrote:
> Costin Manolache wrote:
>
> > Aren't we in 'comit then review' mode for the trunk ?
> >
> > My understanding was that RTC is in effect for the stable releases, but
> > not
> > the trunk,
> > and if there is no controversy ( and so far I think the only major
> > issues
> > was 'don't touch file structure or break ant' ) - he can just submit.
> >
> >
> if that was the case, the old trunk would have never been moved to
> sandbox,
> that trunk was moved to sandbox based on code that never got a veto, -1.
I'm confused - there is a tomcat6/trunk repo - isn't this the trunk ?
I know there are different things in sandbox - and that's all fine for
things that are bigger
or controversial changes - but not sure how a project can work without a
trunk ( unless
tomcat is dead and moved to maintainance only - but I don't remember that
announcement )
> I think the group has been careful lately, and always discussing changes
> to a consensus even before committing to trunk to avoid conflicts like that
> last one, which got quite ugly, even though it was just following CTR.
Well, it is common sense to discuss changes that affect core functionality
before committing, and I think we ( and any other
reasonably active project ) had plenty of conflicts and debates.
I remember a vote to do RTC for stable - and I think it passed, but I don't
remember any "remove the trunk"
or "RTC on the trunk". If it happened - maybe it's time to have another
discussion and reopen the trunk for CTR
and active development.
While most of tomcat works 'well enough', I think there is enough interest
in making tomcat more modular -
and I'm planning to propose some sandbox->trunk moves as well.
>
> in terms of the maven stuff, I don't fully believe that it is non
> intrusive yet. if it means adding poms everywhere in our java source code
> directory structure, i would consider that intrusive.
I would agree - I think what Henri is doing is create a build/maven
directory with poms under it.
>
> Sorry, I haven't been paying attention to all the rule changes - if
> > someone
> > could
> > post the short version, I'm quite interested - I plan to re-start
> > contributing few things and it
> > would be good to know the process.
> >
> >
> consensus is always good to have, dont think we have fully recovered from
> the last episode yet to the point where we can just CTR anything
Sure - but that doesn't mean every small change needs to follow a formal
process and vote. It's still an open source project
that's supposed to be fun :-).
Costin
>
>
> and listen to me, I was the one that marked revolutionary :)
>
>
> Filip
>
> Costin
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <
> > devlists@hanik.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Costin Manolache wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <
> > > > devlists@hanik.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Costin Manolache wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > We already have eclipse files checked in AFAIK - that counts as
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > second
> > > > > > build system.
> > > > > > We used to have makefiles too, also in parallel with ant (in
> > > > > > 3.0
> > > > > > times).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The goal IMO is that people who like to type mvn can do it -
> > > > > > without
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > guarantee that
> > > > > > the result will be identical with the official release or will
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > maintained
> > > > > > long term, just like
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > isn't that the culprit, including a feature under the pretenses
> > > > > that
> > > > > it
> > > > > wont be maintained?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > I meant 'maintained' in the apache-sense, of having 3 +1, etc. (
> > > > which
> > > > AFAIK
> > > > is required for
> > > > something to be 'officially' released ).
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure Henri will maintain it - and at some point it may even
> > > > have
> > > > the 3
> > > > +1s. As long as there is
> > > > no technical reason for a veto ( besides the 'don't break existing
> > > > build' -
> > > > which I think he addressed ),
> > > > I don't see how to stop him. I don't like Maven - but I think
> > > > as
> > > > long
> > > > as it doesn't break anything
> > > > Henri is perfectly entitled to work on this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > absolutely correct, and it should follow the guidelines of voting just
> > > like everything else
> > > 1+ means I support and intend to help
> > > if you just support it, but are not planning on doing the work, then
> > > the
> > > vote is +0 :)
> > >
> > > Henri is more than welcome to make the proposal, no one is stopping
> > > him
> > > from doing so.
> > >
> > > Filip
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Costin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Filip
> > > > >
> > > > > the eclipse project can run but it's quite different from the
> > > > > official
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > build.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If it's making easier for some people to build tomcat - and it
> > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > affect people who use
> > > > > > ant in any way - what's the harm ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Costin
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Remy Maucherat <remm@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 22:28 -0400, Yoav Shapira wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Remy Maucherat <
> > > > > > > > remm@apache.org>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The current build scripts are fully tested and work well.
> > > > > > > > Adding
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > additional methods of building or replacing these scripts
> > > > > > > > > altogether
> > > > > > > > > would only provide ways to create and/or release broken
> > > > > > > > > binaries.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again, no one is saying anything about touching the current
> > > > > > > > build
> > > > > > > > scripts, build process, release process, or source
> > > > > > > > structure.
> > > > > > > > All
> > > > > > > > those remain the same. The job of the release manager
> > > > > > > > remains
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is just an alternative for those people who want to use
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > slightly easier / user-friendlier build system. We could do
> > > > > > > > worse
> > > > > > > > than lowering the barrier to entry for new contributors.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You mean you type "mvn" instead of "ant" ? I agree te keys are
> > > > > > > closer
> > > > > > > together on my keyboard, so it could indeed be easier.
> > > > > > > Personally,
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > did
> > > > > > > have a first hand experience with Maven, and I think it's
> > > > > > > horrible
> > > > > > > (you
> > > > > > > have no clue what it is doing, error reporting is bad, and
> > > > > > > basically,
> > > > > > > you have to think and act the tool's way).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I disagree with having two separate build systems, there's no
> > > > > > > guarantee
> > > > > > > of equivalence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Rémy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > > > > > Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database:
> > > > > > > 269.23.6/1404 -
> > > > > > > Release Date: 4/29/2008 6:27 PM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Costin Manolache wrote:
> Aren't we in 'comit then review' mode for the trunk ?
Yes.
> My understanding was that RTC is in effect for the stable releases, but not
> the trunk,
> and if there is no controversy ( and so far I think the only major issues
> was
> 'don't touch file structure or break ant' ) - he can just submit.
Correct. I'd need more convincing to vote +1 to get it into one of the
release branches but for trunk - assuming no change to existing file
structure - go for it.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <de...@hanik.com>.
Costin Manolache wrote:
> Aren't we in 'comit then review' mode for the trunk ?
>
> My understanding was that RTC is in effect for the stable releases, but not
> the trunk,
> and if there is no controversy ( and so far I think the only major issues
> was 'don't touch file structure or break ant' ) - he can just submit.
>
if that was the case, the old trunk would have never been moved to sandbox,
that trunk was moved to sandbox based on code that never got a veto, -1.
I think the group has been careful lately, and always discussing changes
to a consensus even before committing to trunk to avoid conflicts like
that last one, which got quite ugly, even though it was just following CTR.
in terms of the maven stuff, I don't fully believe that it is non
intrusive yet. if it means adding poms everywhere in our java source
code directory structure, i would consider that intrusive.
> Sorry, I haven't been paying attention to all the rule changes - if someone
> could
> post the short version, I'm quite interested - I plan to re-start
> contributing few things and it
> would be good to know the process.
>
consensus is always good to have, dont think we have fully recovered
from the last episode yet to the point where we can just CTR anything
and listen to me, I was the one that marked revolutionary :)
Filip
> Costin
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <de...@hanik.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Costin Manolache wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <
>>> devlists@hanik.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Costin Manolache wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We already have eclipse files checked in AFAIK - that counts as the
>>>>> second
>>>>> build system.
>>>>> We used to have makefiles too, also in parallel with ant (in 3.0
>>>>> times).
>>>>>
>>>>> The goal IMO is that people who like to type mvn can do it - without
>>>>> any
>>>>> guarantee that
>>>>> the result will be identical with the official release or will be
>>>>> maintained
>>>>> long term, just like
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> isn't that the culprit, including a feature under the pretenses that
>>>> it
>>>> wont be maintained?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I meant 'maintained' in the apache-sense, of having 3 +1, etc. ( which
>>> AFAIK
>>> is required for
>>> something to be 'officially' released ).
>>>
>>> I'm sure Henri will maintain it - and at some point it may even have
>>> the 3
>>> +1s. As long as there is
>>> no technical reason for a veto ( besides the 'don't break existing
>>> build' -
>>> which I think he addressed ),
>>> I don't see how to stop him. I don't like Maven - but I think as
>>> long
>>> as it doesn't break anything
>>> Henri is perfectly entitled to work on this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> absolutely correct, and it should follow the guidelines of voting just
>> like everything else
>> 1+ means I support and intend to help
>> if you just support it, but are not planning on doing the work, then the
>> vote is +0 :)
>>
>> Henri is more than welcome to make the proposal, no one is stopping him
>> from doing so.
>>
>> Filip
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Costin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Filip
>>>>
>>>> the eclipse project can run but it's quite different from the
>>>> official
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> build.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's making easier for some people to build tomcat - and it
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> affect people who use
>>>>> ant in any way - what's the harm ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Costin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 22:28 -0400, Yoav Shapira wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Remy Maucherat <
>>>>>>> remm@apache.org>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The current build scripts are fully tested and work well.
>>>>>>> Adding
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> additional methods of building or replacing these scripts
>>>>>>>> altogether
>>>>>>>> would only provide ways to create and/or release broken
>>>>>>>> binaries.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again, no one is saying anything about touching the current
>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>> scripts, build process, release process, or source structure.
>>>>>>> All
>>>>>>> those remain the same. The job of the release manager remains
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is just an alternative for those people who want to use a
>>>>>>> slightly easier / user-friendlier build system. We could do
>>>>>>> worse
>>>>>>> than lowering the barrier to entry for new contributors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean you type "mvn" instead of "ant" ? I agree te keys are
>>>>>> closer
>>>>>> together on my keyboard, so it could indeed be easier. Personally,
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> did
>>>>>> have a first hand experience with Maven, and I think it's horrible
>>>>>> (you
>>>>>> have no clue what it is doing, error reporting is bad, and
>>>>>> basically,
>>>>>> you have to think and act the tool's way).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I disagree with having two separate build systems, there's no
>>>>>> guarantee
>>>>>> of equivalence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rémy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>>> Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1404 -
>>>>>> Release Date: 4/29/2008 6:27 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
Costin Manolache wrote:
> Sorry, I haven't been paying attention to all the rule changes - if someone
> could
> post the short version, I'm quite interested - I plan to re-start
> contributing few things and it
> would be good to know the process.
trunk is CTR - normal veto rules apply
all release branches are RTC needing 3 more +1s than -1s to get committed
Everywhere else is also CTR - again with normal veto rules although it
would have to be pretty drastic (eg license violation) to get a veto in the
sandbox.
There is also a summary here:
http://wiki.apache.org/tomcat/TomcatVersions
HTH,
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com>.
Aren't we in 'comit then review' mode for the trunk ?
My understanding was that RTC is in effect for the stable releases, but not
the trunk,
and if there is no controversy ( and so far I think the only major issues
was
'don't touch file structure or break ant' ) - he can just submit.
Sorry, I haven't been paying attention to all the rule changes - if someone
could
post the short version, I'm quite interested - I plan to re-start
contributing few things and it
would be good to know the process.
Costin
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <de...@hanik.com>
wrote:
> Costin Manolache wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <
> > devlists@hanik.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Costin Manolache wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > We already have eclipse files checked in AFAIK - that counts as the
> > > > second
> > > > build system.
> > > > We used to have makefiles too, also in parallel with ant (in 3.0
> > > > times).
> > > >
> > > > The goal IMO is that people who like to type mvn can do it - without
> > > > any
> > > > guarantee that
> > > > the result will be identical with the official release or will be
> > > > maintained
> > > > long term, just like
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > isn't that the culprit, including a feature under the pretenses that
> > > it
> > > wont be maintained?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > I meant 'maintained' in the apache-sense, of having 3 +1, etc. ( which
> > AFAIK
> > is required for
> > something to be 'officially' released ).
> >
> > I'm sure Henri will maintain it - and at some point it may even have
> > the 3
> > +1s. As long as there is
> > no technical reason for a veto ( besides the 'don't break existing
> > build' -
> > which I think he addressed ),
> > I don't see how to stop him. I don't like Maven - but I think as
> > long
> > as it doesn't break anything
> > Henri is perfectly entitled to work on this.
> >
> >
> absolutely correct, and it should follow the guidelines of voting just
> like everything else
> 1+ means I support and intend to help
> if you just support it, but are not planning on doing the work, then the
> vote is +0 :)
>
> Henri is more than welcome to make the proposal, no one is stopping him
> from doing so.
>
> Filip
>
>
>
> > Costin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Filip
> > >
> > > the eclipse project can run but it's quite different from the
> > > official
> > >
> > >
> > > > build.
> > > >
> > > > If it's making easier for some people to build tomcat - and it
> > > > doesn't
> > > > affect people who use
> > > > ant in any way - what's the harm ?
> > > >
> > > > Costin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 22:28 -0400, Yoav Shapira wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Remy Maucherat <
> > > > > > remm@apache.org>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > The current build scripts are fully tested and work well.
> > > > > > Adding
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > additional methods of building or replacing these scripts
> > > > > > > altogether
> > > > > > > would only provide ways to create and/or release broken
> > > > > > > binaries.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, no one is saying anything about touching the current
> > > > > > build
> > > > > > scripts, build process, release process, or source structure.
> > > > > > All
> > > > > > those remain the same. The job of the release manager remains
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > same.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is just an alternative for those people who want to use a
> > > > > > slightly easier / user-friendlier build system. We could do
> > > > > > worse
> > > > > > than lowering the barrier to entry for new contributors.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > You mean you type "mvn" instead of "ant" ? I agree te keys are
> > > > > closer
> > > > > together on my keyboard, so it could indeed be easier. Personally,
> > > > > I
> > > > > did
> > > > > have a first hand experience with Maven, and I think it's horrible
> > > > > (you
> > > > > have no clue what it is doing, error reporting is bad, and
> > > > > basically,
> > > > > you have to think and act the tool's way).
> > > > >
> > > > > I disagree with having two separate build systems, there's no
> > > > > guarantee
> > > > > of equivalence.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rémy
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > > > Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1404 -
> > > > > Release Date: 4/29/2008 6:27 PM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <de...@hanik.com>.
Costin Manolache wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <
> devlists@hanik.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Costin Manolache wrote:
>>
>>
>>> We already have eclipse files checked in AFAIK - that counts as the
>>> second
>>> build system.
>>> We used to have makefiles too, also in parallel with ant (in 3.0
>>> times).
>>>
>>> The goal IMO is that people who like to type mvn can do it - without any
>>> guarantee that
>>> the result will be identical with the official release or will be
>>> maintained
>>> long term, just like
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> isn't that the culprit, including a feature under the pretenses that it
>> wont be maintained?
>>
>
>
> I meant 'maintained' in the apache-sense, of having 3 +1, etc. ( which AFAIK
> is required for
> something to be 'officially' released ).
>
> I'm sure Henri will maintain it - and at some point it may even have the 3
> +1s. As long as there is
> no technical reason for a veto ( besides the 'don't break existing build' -
> which I think he addressed ),
> I don't see how to stop him. I don't like Maven - but I think as long
> as it doesn't break anything
> Henri is perfectly entitled to work on this.
>
absolutely correct, and it should follow the guidelines of voting just
like everything else
1+ means I support and intend to help
if you just support it, but are not planning on doing the work, then the
vote is +0 :)
Henri is more than welcome to make the proposal, no one is stopping him
from doing so.
Filip
>
> Costin
>
>
>
>> Filip
>>
>> the eclipse project can run but it's quite different from the official
>>
>>> build.
>>>
>>> If it's making easier for some people to build tomcat - and it doesn't
>>> affect people who use
>>> ant in any way - what's the harm ?
>>>
>>> Costin
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 22:28 -0400, Yoav Shapira wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The current build scripts are fully tested and work well. Adding
>>>>>
>>>>>> additional methods of building or replacing these scripts
>>>>>> altogether
>>>>>> would only provide ways to create and/or release broken binaries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Again, no one is saying anything about touching the current build
>>>>> scripts, build process, release process, or source structure. All
>>>>> those remain the same. The job of the release manager remains the
>>>>> same.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is just an alternative for those people who want to use a
>>>>> slightly easier / user-friendlier build system. We could do worse
>>>>> than lowering the barrier to entry for new contributors.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You mean you type "mvn" instead of "ant" ? I agree te keys are closer
>>>> together on my keyboard, so it could indeed be easier. Personally, I
>>>> did
>>>> have a first hand experience with Maven, and I think it's horrible
>>>> (you
>>>> have no clue what it is doing, error reporting is bad, and basically,
>>>> you have to think and act the tool's way).
>>>>
>>>> I disagree with having two separate build systems, there's no
>>>> guarantee
>>>> of equivalence.
>>>>
>>>> Rémy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1404 -
>>>> Release Date: 4/29/2008 6:27 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <
devlists@hanik.com> wrote:
> Costin Manolache wrote:
>
> > We already have eclipse files checked in AFAIK - that counts as the
> > second
> > build system.
> > We used to have makefiles too, also in parallel with ant (in 3.0
> > times).
> >
> > The goal IMO is that people who like to type mvn can do it - without any
> > guarantee that
> > the result will be identical with the official release or will be
> > maintained
> > long term, just like
> >
> >
> isn't that the culprit, including a feature under the pretenses that it
> wont be maintained?
I meant 'maintained' in the apache-sense, of having 3 +1, etc. ( which AFAIK
is required for
something to be 'officially' released ).
I'm sure Henri will maintain it - and at some point it may even have the 3
+1s. As long as there is
no technical reason for a veto ( besides the 'don't break existing build' -
which I think he addressed ),
I don't see how to stop him. I don't like Maven - but I think as long
as it doesn't break anything
Henri is perfectly entitled to work on this.
Costin
>
> Filip
>
> the eclipse project can run but it's quite different from the official
> > build.
> >
> > If it's making easier for some people to build tomcat - and it doesn't
> > affect people who use
> > ant in any way - what's the harm ?
> >
> > Costin
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 22:28 -0400, Yoav Shapira wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > The current build scripts are fully tested and work well. Adding
> > > > > additional methods of building or replacing these scripts
> > > > > altogether
> > > > > would only provide ways to create and/or release broken binaries.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Again, no one is saying anything about touching the current build
> > > > scripts, build process, release process, or source structure. All
> > > > those remain the same. The job of the release manager remains the
> > > > same.
> > > >
> > > > This is just an alternative for those people who want to use a
> > > > slightly easier / user-friendlier build system. We could do worse
> > > > than lowering the barrier to entry for new contributors.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > You mean you type "mvn" instead of "ant" ? I agree te keys are closer
> > > together on my keyboard, so it could indeed be easier. Personally, I
> > > did
> > > have a first hand experience with Maven, and I think it's horrible
> > > (you
> > > have no clue what it is doing, error reporting is bad, and basically,
> > > you have to think and act the tool's way).
> > >
> > > I disagree with having two separate build systems, there's no
> > > guarantee
> > > of equivalence.
> > >
> > > Rémy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1404 -
> > > Release Date: 4/29/2008 6:27 PM
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <de...@hanik.com>.
Costin Manolache wrote:
> We already have eclipse files checked in AFAIK - that counts as the second
> build system.
> We used to have makefiles too, also in parallel with ant (in 3.0 times).
>
> The goal IMO is that people who like to type mvn can do it - without any
> guarantee that
> the result will be identical with the official release or will be maintained
> long term, just like
>
isn't that the culprit, including a feature under the pretenses that it
wont be maintained?
Filip
> the eclipse project can run but it's quite different from the official
> build.
>
> If it's making easier for some people to build tomcat - and it doesn't
> affect people who use
> ant in any way - what's the harm ?
>
> Costin
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
>> On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 22:28 -0400, Yoav Shapira wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>
>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> The current build scripts are fully tested and work well. Adding
>>>> additional methods of building or replacing these scripts altogether
>>>> would only provide ways to create and/or release broken binaries.
>>>>
>>> Again, no one is saying anything about touching the current build
>>> scripts, build process, release process, or source structure. All
>>> those remain the same. The job of the release manager remains the
>>> same.
>>>
>>> This is just an alternative for those people who want to use a
>>> slightly easier / user-friendlier build system. We could do worse
>>> than lowering the barrier to entry for new contributors.
>>>
>> You mean you type "mvn" instead of "ant" ? I agree te keys are closer
>> together on my keyboard, so it could indeed be easier. Personally, I did
>> have a first hand experience with Maven, and I think it's horrible (you
>> have no clue what it is doing, error reporting is bad, and basically,
>> you have to think and act the tool's way).
>>
>> I disagree with having two separate build systems, there's no guarantee
>> of equivalence.
>>
>> Rémy
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG.
>> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1404 - Release Date: 4/29/2008 6:27 PM
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Costin Manolache <co...@gmail.com>.
We already have eclipse files checked in AFAIK - that counts as the second
build system.
We used to have makefiles too, also in parallel with ant (in 3.0 times).
The goal IMO is that people who like to type mvn can do it - without any
guarantee that
the result will be identical with the official release or will be maintained
long term, just like
the eclipse project can run but it's quite different from the official
build.
If it's making easier for some people to build tomcat - and it doesn't
affect people who use
ant in any way - what's the harm ?
Costin
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 22:28 -0400, Yoav Shapira wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > The current build scripts are fully tested and work well. Adding
> > > additional methods of building or replacing these scripts altogether
> > > would only provide ways to create and/or release broken binaries.
> >
> > Again, no one is saying anything about touching the current build
> > scripts, build process, release process, or source structure. All
> > those remain the same. The job of the release manager remains the
> > same.
> >
> > This is just an alternative for those people who want to use a
> > slightly easier / user-friendlier build system. We could do worse
> > than lowering the barrier to entry for new contributors.
>
> You mean you type "mvn" instead of "ant" ? I agree te keys are closer
> together on my keyboard, so it could indeed be easier. Personally, I did
> have a first hand experience with Maven, and I think it's horrible (you
> have no clue what it is doing, error reporting is bad, and basically,
> you have to think and act the tool's way).
>
> I disagree with having two separate build systems, there's no guarantee
> of equivalence.
>
> Rémy
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 22:28 -0400, Yoav Shapira wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> > The current build scripts are fully tested and work well. Adding
> > additional methods of building or replacing these scripts altogether
> > would only provide ways to create and/or release broken binaries.
>
> Again, no one is saying anything about touching the current build
> scripts, build process, release process, or source structure. All
> those remain the same. The job of the release manager remains the
> same.
>
> This is just an alternative for those people who want to use a
> slightly easier / user-friendlier build system. We could do worse
> than lowering the barrier to entry for new contributors.
You mean you type "mvn" instead of "ant" ? I agree te keys are closer
together on my keyboard, so it could indeed be easier. Personally, I did
have a first hand experience with Maven, and I think it's horrible (you
have no clue what it is doing, error reporting is bad, and basically,
you have to think and act the tool's way).
I disagree with having two separate build systems, there's no guarantee
of equivalence.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com>.
> This is just an alternative for those people who want to use a
> slightly easier / user-friendlier build system. We could do worse
> than lowering the barrier to entry for new contributors.
The idea is to :
- keep the current source layout
- keep the build.xml
- add some subdirs with pom.xml
- add a pom.xml to the base, where an ant task will grab sources,
subdirs/pom.xml and assemble them in an alternative location before
building.
it's tricky and unusual in a maven world, but it will help maven users
to have quickly a running Tomcat from scratch.
No revolution here, not even evolution, just an alternative :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> The current build scripts are fully tested and work well. Adding
> additional methods of building or replacing these scripts altogether
> would only provide ways to create and/or release broken binaries.
Again, no one is saying anything about touching the current build
scripts, build process, release process, or source structure. All
those remain the same. The job of the release manager remains the
same.
This is just an alternative for those people who want to use a
slightly easier / user-friendlier build system. We could do worse
than lowering the barrier to entry for new contributors.
Yoav
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 21:03 -0400, Yoav Shapira wrote:
> But like I said earlier, it's not worth disrupting the current Tomcat
> build or source layout. Only if it can be done without requiring any
> changes, which it can.
I will still vote against any inclusion of Maven usage in TC 6.0, 5.5
and 4.1 (and for these branches only).
The current build scripts are fully tested and work well. Adding
additional methods of building or replacing these scripts altogether
would only provide ways to create and/or release broken binaries.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Filip, this is a fairly rare case where I disagree with you ;)
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists
<de...@hanik.com> wrote:
> simply because it requires changes, I like to think we work according to
It can be done without requiring any changes.
> "if it aint broke, don't fix it", and since the maven build doesn't give us
> anything the ANT build already does, then there seems to be little point of
It's easier. That's it.
> I suggest you go back in the archives, the comments you'll see this time
> around, will be the same when this issue was brought up last and was voted
Not true. I, for one, spoke against it in the past. Having used
Maven 2 for 2+ years, I now prefer it over Ant. Moreover, I can
testify that it's saved me and my teams considerable time and resulted
in more consistent and cleaner builds. I haven't even bothered to
subscribe to users@maven.a.o, much less dev@maven.a.o, I've just been
a pure user and it's been cool.
But like I said earlier, it's not worth disrupting the current Tomcat
build or source layout. Only if it can be done without requiring any
changes, which it can.
Yoav
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <de...@hanik.com>.
Henri Gomez wrote:
>> -1 for any change to the build in Tomcat 6.0.
>>
>
> Why ?
>
simply because it requires changes, I like to think we work according to
"if it aint broke, don't fix it", and since the maven build doesn't give
us anything the ANT build already does, then there seems to be little
point of it.
I suggest you go back in the archives, the comments you'll see this time
around, will be the same when this issue was brought up last and was
voted down.
In this case remy probably didn't explain his -1, cause it's been
discussed before. normally a -1 must come with a technical
justification, and there were several last time we discussed this.
Filip
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com>.
> -1 for any change to the build in Tomcat 6.0.
Why ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 22:09 +0200, Henri Gomez wrote:
> Just a new thread to discuss about mavenizing Tomcat (OSGI Thread is
> allready fully loaded and really interesting).
>
> Costin told us he didn't want to change the current source layout.
>
> Alternative to mavenizing tomcat could be :
>
> - add subdirs (for modules) and pom.xml and hack the source files
> filters to get only what's required.
>
> - create a root pom and subdirs/pom.xml, and an ant task to fill a
> mavenized targets directories where a standard maven build will be
> done.
>
> Any more ideas or advices ?
-1 for any change to the build in Tomcat 6.0.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org
Re: Mavenizing Tomcat : Was: Osgifing Tomcat
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Henri Gomez <he...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Costin told us he didn't want to change the current source layout.
I agree with Coston on this. But thankfully Maven is flexible in this
area. You can define any set of source folders.
> - add subdirs (for modules) and pom.xml and hack the source files
> filters to get only what's required.
>
> - create a root pom and subdirs/pom.xml, and an ant task to fill a
> mavenized targets directories where a standard maven build will be
> done.
I like the second idea, simplified further. One Ant task in the root
build.xml to copy all the required files into a Maven-friendly
temporary directory structure and run the Maven build. One pom.xml
file to actually do the Maven build in that Maven-friendly temporary
directory layout.
That way the original and current build system, source tree, etc, are
not touched at all.
Yoav
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tomcat.apache.org