On Sep 20, 2010, at 1:07 PM, Robert Muir wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Uwe Schindler <[email protected]> wrote: > If somebody reorders the directory structure, I will shout “revert revert > revert” J > > > I wouldn't shout "revert revert revert" if by renaming stuff from src/java to > src/main/java etc, Grant's idea would work, in that we still use ant for our > build, but we have some way to automagically generate IDE configuration files > for eclipse, idea, netbeans, emacs, whatever, via some maven tool. > > If this was the benefit, and the tradeoff being more difficult merging, and > having to ignore some path segments on existing patches, I might consider it > worth the cost. > > but again, i have serious questions about maven in general. for example, what > if I wanted to add/modify a contrib that depends on a library that is not > "mavenized"? Is it my responsibility to "mavenize" that dependency, too? > Does it make the release artifact invalid? is it a valid reason against > adding that contrib, since its dependencies are not all mavenized?
Typically, this is done by adding the library in question to the release, renamed appropriately. For instance, in Solr, we had a trunk based version of Commons CSV at one point, so we put it up w/ the Solr artifacts and had the POM reflect that. But yeah, it can be a pain. > > the fact that maven acts like a computer virus, but requires special things > of its hosts, means that i am pretty hesitant to vote for "full support of > it" without knowing exactly what the tradeoffs are. I'm not saying we have to support it, but, in my view, it's pretty hard to take back a feature, admittedly only for some, that we have supported for a long time. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
