Re: [VOTE] Use Maven as official build tool

[Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>]

Peter Donald wrote:
> Maven is very very kool. I have been using it for a bit and love it. I just 
> saw a change go in that makes it possible to change reports displayed too - 
> yaya!
> 
> However I don't think it should be our primary build tool till post maven-b8 
> release. We can add in b7 project.xmls but I would prefer to keep the current 
> build.xmls around until the future.

Previously, I had asked that the maven descriptor in the avalon CVS not 
be in the main dir, not to confuse our users.

But as I now understand from this mail, it's also possible that we just 
don't include it in the releases.

I'm against using any non-released buildtool in releases.

But given that there is much discussion on things that developers don't 
even know what is about, I think it's in the best interest of all Avalon 
that build tools alternative to Ant are included in the correct places 
in our projects so that all developers can evaluate them and decide on 
merit rather than feeling.

This of course also means that we accept the POMs from Jason, and can 
commit any other build system too for comparative evaluation.

What do you guys think, is this reasonable?



-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Use Maven as official build tool

[Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>]

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

>
>
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
> ...
>
>> First of all - I would love to be able to see a comparison. 
>
>
> Then let's hold off for now. I want to be clear on this: I don't care 
> what build tool we choose in the end, but I want to see a fair 
> comparison. Fair in the conditions I mean, then everyone can decide as 
> he wants. Decisions based on emotions, especially technical ones, are 
> never good.


Sounds fine.

>
>> Can you point me to a Java project at Apache using Centipede for 
>> project management?  
>
>
> Jakarta POI is in the progress of conversion to the new centipede. 
> I'll tell you when it's "ready" to evaluate.


OK

>
> In the meantime, Jeff and I and many others are more than capable of 
> fixing any Ant problem we may have. I'm having difficulty in 
> partecipating actively in these days, but I'll be responsive on 
> specific questions and needs.
>
>> Secondly, I don't want to see Jason's 20 POMs committed (they a 
>> minimal and don't address thinigs like test cases and some of the 
>> annomolies in some of the Avalon projects).
>
>
> Ok, from the mails it seems that you are not the only one, although it 
> confuses me a bit since you propose to use Maven... 


Let me clear up the confusion.  Based on my internal usage of Maven I 
feel that even in its beta and evolving state, it provides a better 
platform for release management than what we have now. I also think that 
we would need time to play and get things like a project strategy into 
place.  Jason's 20 POMs are basically minimal - and somewhat out of 
date.  I have a number of projects that I have build up project 
descriptors with full support for site generation, testing, releasing, 
etc.  Its based on that work that I'm feeling good about Maven.  I also 
have problems with Maven - things like manifest files that look 
unworkable - and the royal pain when things don't work.  I also don't 
like the absence of a roadmap of a schedule concerning Maven releases. 
 I don't like the fact that as soon as you deal with anything 
non-classic in structure, you really need to rollover to 0.8.  

Aside from all of my complaints, its my impression that Maven today is 
better that what we have today (Ant + Avalon specifics).

> anyway, it seems that the result is to go with Ant till stable releases.
> This means that we need to find a way of comparing Maven and 
> Centipede... should we enable multiple build tools in sandbox to see 
> how they work? I think it's in the best interest of all.
>
Let's bring it up again after the release process is done.

Cheers, Steve.

-- 

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:mcconnell@apache.org
http://www.osm.net




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Use Maven as official build tool

[Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>]

Stephen McConnell wrote:
...
> First of all - I would love to be able to see a comparison. 

Then let's hold off for now. I want to be clear on this: I don't care 
what build tool we choose in the end, but I want to see a fair 
comparison. Fair in the conditions I mean, then everyone can decide as 
he wants. Decisions based on emotions, especially technical ones, are 
never good.

> Can you 
> point me to a Java project at Apache using Centipede for project 
> management?  

Jakarta POI is in the progress of conversion to the new centipede. I'll 
tell you when it's "ready" to evaluate.

In the meantime, Jeff and I and many others are more than capable of 
fixing any Ant problem we may have. I'm having difficulty in 
partecipating actively in these days, but I'll be responsive on specific 
questions and needs.

> Secondly, I don't want to see Jason's 20 POMs committed 
> (they a minimal and don't address thinigs like test cases and some of 
> the annomolies in some of the Avalon projects).

Ok, from the mails it seems that you are not the only one, although it 
confuses me a bit since you propose to use Maven... anyway, it seems 
that the result is to go with Ant till stable releases.
This means that we need to find a way of comparing Maven and 
Centipede... should we enable multiple build tools in sandbox to see how 
they work? I think it's in the best interest of all.

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Use Maven as official build tool

[Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>]

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:

>
>
> Peter Donald wrote:
>
>> Maven is very very kool. I have been using it for a bit and love it. 
>> I just saw a change go in that makes it possible to change reports 
>> displayed too - yaya!
>>
>> However I don't think it should be our primary build tool till post 
>> maven-b8 release. We can add in b7 project.xmls but I would prefer to 
>> keep the current build.xmls around until the future.
>
>
> Previously, I had asked that the maven descriptor in the avalon CVS 
> not be in the main dir, not to confuse our users.
>
> But as I now understand from this mail, it's also possible that we 
> just don't include it in the releases.
>
> I'm against using any non-released buildtool in releases.
>
> But given that there is much discussion on things that developers 
> don't even know what is about, I think it's in the best interest of 
> all Avalon that build tools alternative to Ant are included in the 
> correct places in our projects so that all developers can evaluate 
> them and decide on merit rather than feeling.
>
> This of course also means that we accept the POMs from Jason, and can 
> commit any other build system too for comparative evaluation.
>
> What do you guys think, is this reasonable?
>

A couple of things here.

First of all - I would love to be able to see a comparison. Can you 
point me to a Java project at Apache using Centerpede for project 
management?  Secondly, I don't want to see Jason's 20 POMs committed 
(they a minimal and don't address thinigs like test cases and some of 
the annomolies in some of the Avalon projects).

Cheers, Steve.

-- 

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:mcconnell@apache.org
http://www.osm.net




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Use Maven as official build tool

[Paul Hammant <Pa...@yahoo.com>]

Nicola, Folks,

> This of course also means that we accept the POMs from Jason, and can 
> commit any other build system too for comparative evaluation.
>
> What do you guys think, is this reasonable?

I think we should just hold off.  We have Ant scripts already, we are 
not in need of some start of project magic.  It does not actually solve 
anything.  Neither Centipede or Maven can be called defacto standards, 
whereas Ant can be.  Could people reconsider this otherwise landslide 
vote and just pend any decision until the Maven team can come back with 
1.0 and some magic Ant-> Maven/Jelly trnsalator?

Regards

- Paul



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org