Re: Moving to a newer Yoko?

[Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Vasily Zakharov <vm...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Sorry, that's not the only way that Maven builds SNAPSHOTS -
>  > some people deploy only a single artifact, not discreet builds.
>
>  Sorry, I don't quite get what do you mean.
>  Sure, that's not the only way.
>  But that's just the way we used for Yoko since we you use Yoko.

When using Maven, you can configure the deployment of snapshots to
deploy unique builds or one build. If you don't use unique builds, the
only artifacts that are in the repo would be 'yoko-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar'.
Many people disable unique builds because it produces too many
artifacts and takes up too much disk space.

If we're going to use Maven SNAPSHOT builds, it's important to
understand how they are produced and uploaded.

>
>
>  >  Note - Harmony builds other libraries - apr-*, log4cxx.
>
>  Yes, I know. But we never built Yoko and I don't see any reason to
>  change that. Do you?
>

It depends. I'm not keen on using SNAPSHOTs, especially if the team
that owns the code and in theory produces them says they don't use
them, but rather use custom custom builds.

More than anything, I was trying to point out that building other
project's code isn't unprecedented; just because it's Java source
doesn't mean shouldn't build it ourselves.

-Nathan

>  Vasily
>
>
>
>
>
>  >
>  >  On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Vasily Zakharov <vm...@apache.org> wrote:
>  >  > I think it's preferable because it saves us the effort of building
>  >  >  Yoko each time Harmony is built.
>  >  >
>  >  >  I mean using a particular snapshot.
>  >  >
>  >  >  The repository we've been downloading Yoko previously [1] only
>  >  >  contains a single 1.0-SNAPSHOT, 1.0-20080304.
>  >  >  And that's the one I've updated the dependencies to.
>  >  >
>  >  >  Vasily
>  >  >
>  >  >  [1] http://people.apache.org/maven-snapshot-repository/org/apache/yoko/
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >  On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Nathan Beyer <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  >  > Why is that preferable? SNAPSHOTs change without notice, so the build
>  >  >  >  could just break on any given day.
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Vasily Zakharov <vm...@apache.org> wrote:
>  >  >  >  > Rick McGuire at geronimo-dev suggested to either pull down the
>  >  >  >  >  1.0-SNAPSHOT version from
>  >  >  >  >  the central repositories, or do what Geronimo does and build a
>  >  >  >  >  released from a known repository level.
>  >  >  >  >  I think using the snapshot is preferable for us. I've just committed
>  >  >  >  >  the necessary changes as r642988.
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  Vasily
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 12:54 AM, Tim Ellison <t....@gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  > Vasily Zakharov wrote:
>  >  >  >  >  >  >>> The question is, which Yoko release should we move to?
>  >  >  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  >  >> Maybe ping the Geronimo list (the new home of Yoko) to figure out
>  >  >  >  >  >  >> what they have got now if you can't tell from the downloads.
>  >  >  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  >  > We could take the Yoko version used in the latest Geronimo release, do
>  >  >  >  >  >  > you mean that?
>  >  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  >  No, I actually meant that when Yoko moved under the Geronimo project we
>  >  >  >  >  >  explicitly asked that they make separate downloads available for us to
>  >  >  >  >  >  pick up and use in Harmony.  Hopefully that happened (but I don't see it
>  >  >  >  >  >  after a brief wander around their project website).
>  >  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  >  So ping the dev list to see where we can get the latest Yoko downloads.
>  >  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  >  Regards,
>  >  >  >  >  >  Tim
>  >  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >
>  >  >
>  >
>