[zeta-dev] Build system evaluation

[Tobias Schlitt <to...@schlitt.info>]

Hi,

I feel the need to start this new thread in order to coordinately
evaluate a build system to be used in Zeta, since the discussions are
quite wide spread currently and we should maybe reboot it in order to
get something can all agree upon and live with in the future.

In addition to this discussion I very much appreciate if Jerome
continues his efforts to realize our website build script with different
build tools, so we get real live impressions of what they are capable of.

What especially concerns me is that we should decide on a single system
for all future tasks where we might need a build system, too, not only
for generating the website. For example the release process and
everything around (tagging releases, running tests up-front) should be
implemented as a build script, as well as CI related tasks.

I'd suggest to extend Jeromes evaluation in this direction. In order to
support it, I have created a first wiki page [1], where Jerome will keep
a summary of the evaluation and develop it further. To make one thing
clear up front: Nobody has to use the wiki or even read it. The page is
by now just there to keep track of the summary state of the discussion
so you don't need to read the full threads to get into it.

To reboot the discussion, I'd recommend to start with requirements we
have for a build system. From my POV:

- Portability
  - scripts should run on all common systems
  - devs should not care much about OS issues
- Extensibility
  - be able realize even unusual tasks
  - build reusable stuff with it
- Maintainability
  - modular tasks and dependencies
  - devs should feel comfortable
  - easy to read build files
- Integrability
  - should work with CI systems (esp. Bamboo, maybe Jenkins)

I would also love if the system we choose gives us a wide range of
pre-built tools at hand, which are common for build tasks (e.g. working
with file lists, creating/extracting archives, property management,
etc.), but this could also be built by ourselves, if necessary.

Let the fight continue. :)

Regards,
Toby

[1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZETACOMP/Build+system

-- 
Tobias Schlitt        http://schlitt.info        GPG Key: 0xC462BC14
Want to hire me? Need quality assurance?            http://qafoo.com
eZ Components are Zeta Components now!          http://bit.ly/9S7zbn

Re: [zeta-dev] Build system evaluation

[Jerome Renard <je...@gmail.com>]

Hi there,

The wiki has just been updated :

- https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZETACOMP/Build+system

-- 
Jérôme Renard
http://39web.fr | http://jrenard.info | http://twitter.com/jeromerenard

Re: [zeta-dev] Build system evaluation

[Jerome Renard <je...@apache.org>]

Hi Maxime,

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Maxime Thomas <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> Reading all the mails on this topic, I was wondering if all this can be
> turned in a component to add to AZC.
> It could be the 'Package' component and it could be compliant with all
> standards (Phing, Pake, Phar, Ant, blablabla).
> What do you think ?

Could you please elaborate ?

:)

-- 
Jérôme Renard
http://39web.fr | http://jrenard.info | http://twitter.com/jeromerenard

Re: [zeta-dev] Build system evaluation

[Maxime Thomas <ma...@gmail.com>]

2011/4/13 Tobias Schlitt <to...@schlitt.info>

> Hi,
>
> I feel the need to start this new thread in order to coordinately
> evaluate a build system to be used in Zeta, since the discussions are
> quite wide spread currently and we should maybe reboot it in order to
> get something can all agree upon and live with in the future.
>
> In addition to this discussion I very much appreciate if Jerome
> continues his efforts to realize our website build script with different
> build tools, so we get real live impressions of what they are capable of.
>
> What especially concerns me is that we should decide on a single system
> for all future tasks where we might need a build system, too, not only
> for generating the website. For example the release process and
> everything around (tagging releases, running tests up-front) should be
> implemented as a build script, as well as CI related tasks.
>
> I'd suggest to extend Jeromes evaluation in this direction. In order to
> support it, I have created a first wiki page [1], where Jerome will keep
> a summary of the evaluation and develop it further. To make one thing
> clear up front: Nobody has to use the wiki or even read it. The page is
> by now just there to keep track of the summary state of the discussion
> so you don't need to read the full threads to get into it.
>
> To reboot the discussion, I'd recommend to start with requirements we
> have for a build system. From my POV:
>
> - Portability
>  - scripts should run on all common systems
>  - devs should not care much about OS issues
> - Extensibility
>  - be able realize even unusual tasks
>  - build reusable stuff with it
> - Maintainability
>  - modular tasks and dependencies
>  - devs should feel comfortable
>  - easy to read build files
> - Integrability
>  - should work with CI systems (esp. Bamboo, maybe Jenkins)
>
> I would also love if the system we choose gives us a wide range of
> pre-built tools at hand, which are common for build tasks (e.g. working
> with file lists, creating/extracting archives, property management,
> etc.), but this could also be built by ourselves, if necessary.
>
> Let the fight continue. :)
>
> Regards,
> Toby
>
> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZETACOMP/Build+system
>
> --
> Tobias Schlitt        http://schlitt.info        GPG Key: 0xC462BC14
> Want to hire me? Need quality assurance?            http://qafoo.com
> eZ Components are Zeta Components now!          http://bit.ly/9S7zbn
>


Reading all the mails on this topic, I was wondering if all this can be
turned in a component to add to AZC.
It could be the 'Package' component and it could be compliant with all
standards (Phing, Pake, Phar, Ant, blablabla).
What do you think ?

-- 
Maxime
maxime.thomas@wascou.org | www.wascou.org | http://twitter.com/wascou