> On Feb 5, 2018, at 3:05 PM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 14:27:53 -0500, Rob Tompkins wrote: >>> On Feb 5, 2018, at 2:22 PM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 14:17:18 -0500, Rob Tompkins wrote: >>>> Which should be the template multi-module project? They all have >>>> subtle differences that lead to different nuances to the build. >>> >>> Which differences did you spot? >> >> Nothing of any particular consequence, just where the main assemblies >> end up. Or which Pom they’re in. > > What do you mean by "main assemblies"? If it's the "full" > distribution, then is it a matter of naming the output directory? > It could be configurable. > > For the config, the main POM looks the appropriate place if it can > be done without side-effects. [For RNG I created a separate directory > because I was not sure how to do it.]
Right….that’s why I was asking which project would be the best standard to work from, and then I could go through and take all of the other multi-module builds and mildly refactor the pom/directory structure to align with which ever we decided was standard. Is [jcs] the right choice as the standard? Cheers, -Rob > > Gilles > >>>> I >>>> figure we pick one and make that the standard multi-module build >>>> paradigm and fit the others into it. >>>> >>>> -Rob > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
