avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <leosim...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Use Maven as official build tool
Date Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:04:04 GMT
Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Several of our committers are very keen on Maven, and we have a butt-
> load of releases to make.  The question is, should we do the Maven
> migration project by project as we release, should we wait until after
> the releases to decide?
> 
> Maven is pretty solid, and I actually do prefer it to Centipede
> (sorry Nicola).  Our users need a stable build process that does
> not change every time we upgrade a version number.  We can do this
> now, or wait.
> 
> VOTE POINTS
> -----------
> 
> Use Maven as build tool   (+1 from me)

-1 (vote not veto) if we migrate to use a cvs version of any build tool. 
-0 for setting up our build system based on a beta release, and +1 for 
setting up based on a stable release. This kinda goes for both maven and 
centipede, but see below.

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
2) GUMP integration
3) 'compatible' with forrest
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. 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

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).

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.

> 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: avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message