On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 12:04, Leo Simons wrote: > > I have yet to take a good look at recent maven and try it out. We have > four requirements: > > 1) be easier than ant to use in addressing our build requirements
Not all the POMs I send work because of the circular dependencies but I use many of them to build pieces of excalibure I use. > 2) GUMP integration I don't know exactly when it will be released, but Continuum is functioning and Bob and I are working on getting it finished. A CI tool that uses Plexus, Maven, Summit and an SCM toolkit I've been working on. > 3) 'compatible' with forrest If you mean the markup that could certainly be accommodated. If you're going to use Maven I think there is almost zero value in using Forrest. You'll either be double processing the docs generated by Maven, Forrest is slow and everyone who wants to contributing to the site will have to install Forrest which was not a fun exercise for me the other day as I wanted to see what it could do. > 4) stability, documentation, etc > > I know for certain it satisfies (1). Maven has some cool technology, esp > Jelly. > > wrt (2), I heard something about maven incorporating its own integration > tool instead of gump, but I also heard of efforts to get them > cooperating. It's called Continuum and it has to be complete before March 3 for an internal deadline. So I hope to have it working before then. > I think it's vital that there's only one integration setup > for ASF java software, as the value of integration decreases rapidly if > less projects join in. If we cannot move to maven and be a part of gump > that'd change my vote to -1. But I don't think that is the case: > http://cvs.apache.org/builds/gump/latest/module_jakarta-turbine-maven.html Once Continuum works I think that Sam will be pleased as he's always encourage a reimplementation of Gump, or at least been in favour of one. > wrt (3), I doubt that it would be that hard (I believe maven provides > support for ant, so it should provide some support for forrest too). If > you need to type `maven; forrest;` instead of just `maven`, well, I can > also live with it. > > wrt (4), There's also always the concern that a product you depend on is > here to stay, stable, contains few bugs, and is easy for our users to > use. This is important. I think the potential problem here is "stable". > > I'd planned to delay looking at maven again until beta8. From a quick > glance at maven-dev (ie I could be wrong), it sounds like more users are > anxiously waiting for it but it isn't getting here anytime soon (there > was talks in december, then halfway january, again today...it's still in > alpha development looking at all the commits). It's certainly not alpha, there have been no fundamental core changes in quite a while. Most additions now are in the form of plugins. > Most people are currently running maven from cvs head apparently. I > wouldn't be happy at all if we were to rely on a cvs version of a build > tool. Just spells disaster. I certainly wouldn't try everything at once, but I made you guys some POMs and trying a few with HEAD wouldn't be that hard. The only show stopper with Maven right now is the release plugin (which you might definitely want to contribute to if you're planning releases) so that I can make consistent releases on a more frequent basis. > > Do migration as we release each project (+1 from me) > > if the first proposal goes through, +1 on this one. > > cheers, > > - Leo > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
