cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geoff Howard <coc...@leverageweb.com>
Subject Re: Cocoon-2.1-dev build fails
Date Thu, 27 Mar 2003 14:27:58 GMT
At 11:12 PM 3/26/2003, David wrote:
>Geoff Howard wrote:
> > Vadim wrote:
> > >Geoff Howard wrote:
> > >>Vadim wrote:
> > >>>Geoff Howard wrote:
> > >>>> ### wrote:

<snip/>

> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Shouldn't the jars validation be configurable though like the other
> > >>validations?  If it's now working, just default the validate.jars to 
> true
> > >>by default.
> > >
> > >Ok, so you will add it by yourself then ;-P
>
>I think that the validate-jars/check-jars task should *not*
>be optional. The only reason that it might fail and bust
>the build is if the committer who added the new jar did not
>describe it properly (or did not do a build before committing).
>The reason for this task is to ensure a solid build.

I think that's a great argument for why it should be enabled by
default, just as the validate-config.  If the config files don't
validate, cocoon may not even start, but if the jars.xml is broken,
cocoon may still build and run fine.  We need it there to nag us
to keep the descriptor current but I don't see the need to single
this step out as the one that will hang up all users of cvs while
jars.xml gets fixed.

The other night, there were new users trying
to build and evaluate 2.1 dev that were apt to think the entire
project was broken when in reality cocoon built fine, but the build
process aborted because of failure during this validation.  In this
case, it wasn't even that jars.xml was out of date, but the evolving
build process temporarily broke the use of it, causing even more
confusion for users (and me!).  In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but
if I want to totally ignore a given block, but its jar in jars.xml is
missing/misconfigured my build will be aborted.

I had to suggest they modify the webapp target to remove the dependency
on validate-jars to keep them from being blocked while it that process
got fixed.  If it can be turned off temporarily, it will allow
other unrelated work to continue if fixes to the validation process are
necessary.

> > almost forgot! :) (If I don't tick anybody off soon - the vote is still
> > going on)
>
>Well now you can "tick people off" to your heart's content.

What is the emoticon for a devious look?

>Be kind please.

In all seriousness, _that_ I promise.

>--David

Geoff 


Mime
View raw message