On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 10:05:15 -0500, Rob Tompkins wrote:
On Feb 16, 2018, at 2:47 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:01:23 -0500, Rob Tompkins wrote:
On Feb 15, 2018, at 2:37 PM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
wrote:
On Wed, 07 Feb 2018 15:22:59 +0100, Gilles wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 08:31:45 -0500, Rob Tompkins wrote:
On Feb 6, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Gilles
<gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 21:49:52 -0500, Rob Tompkins wrote:
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?
Why this one rather than another?
It's not clear what you are looking for.
It really doesn’t matter too much to me, I just wanted to get a
community consensus on what we think a standard directory
structure
should be, or the exemplar
multimodule commons project.
Quite possibly none of them is *the* example to follow.
It’s just easier to work from a specific project as opposed to
trying
to generalize immediately.
Perhaps (?) the other way around: by implementing some release
procedure of a multi-module project, you can suggest a matching
layout.
See also my "wish" below. If it could work that way, the layout
does not matter since the module info is taken from the top POM.
Perhaps there could be a profile
---CUT---
<profile>
<id>distribution-bundle</id>
<modules>
<module>commons-compX-mod1</module>
<module>commons-compX-mod2</module>
</modules>
</profile>
---CUT---
And the plugin would go down the named directories and collect
the artefacts. This would allow a project to contain modules
not yet ready for release.
So my thought right now is either [rng] or [jcs].
I suppose another thought could be: is anyone planning a release
on a
commons multi-module project anytime soon?
Yes.
If so which?
"Commons RNG", as soon as the pending issues[1] are resolved:
* RNG-40
* RNG-31
* RNG-48
* RNG-44
The latter three are related to the multi-module handling by
the "parent" project (i.e. the problem(s) which you intend to
solve IIUC).
Where do we stand wrt the functionalities needed to
release a modular project?
My first attempt (which I’ve gotten to work with other maven
plugins)
didn’t immediately work.
Which project is serving as playground?
More debugging there will likely tease out
the issue. The goal is to have the mojos only operate on the top
level
pom.xml.
Why? [It is conceivable that some project may want to release
some sub-module(s).]
For the most part the plugin centers on the assembly files, the site,
and the release notes for which a release only has one of.
For "site" and "release notes" I agree that there is one. [Which
is the same as saying that this is not multi-module related.]
The "assembly" is an problem with the release of a multi-module
project (see issue RNG-31).
I see that Maven is working "hierarchically" (cf. "effective POM").
But from the above, I have the (perhaps wrong) impression, that you
are working against that feature...
I have the perhaps naïve view that whenever a module is
mentioned in a <modules> directive, it should just be
aggregated to the "assembly".
So my focus
is to get that working, then we can jump into the how to think about
a
release where individual sub modules are removed.
Again, this is the other way around (IMHO): let maven tell you which
module is "on" (and the plugin will aggregate); nothing to do for
a "removed" <module> directive.
If we do a release removing sub modules, how do we accomplish that?
Do we remove them from the Pom?
It's a possibility (to be done only in the release branch then).
Another, which I mentioned in a previous post (see somewhere
above), would be to have a profile that would list the modules
to be released.
Please look at the POMs, "top-level" and modules, for [RNG].
There is a default list of modules and there is a profile that
duplicates that list and add "commons-rng-examples" to allow
a more recent language level.
Gilles
-Rob
Regards,
Gilles
[1]
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RNG-40?filter=-5&jql=project%20%3D%20RNG%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.1%20order%20by%20priority%20DESC%2Cupdated%20DESC
-Rob
From what I see wrt the creation of "full dist" artefacts, the
difference with e.g. [RNG] is that in [jcs], there is a maven
module, with no code, while for [RNG], there is a directory
(not a maven module), but both contain a POM whose only purpose
is to provide an "assembly" config.
Having no idea on how to achieve it, I'd wish that creating
the "full dist" only requires a custom "goal" like (?)
$ mvn package:dist
with no ad-hoc directory/module: all modules specified in the
top POM would have their artefacts (recursively) bundled into
<component>-dist-<version>.tar.gz
Regards,
Gilles
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
