commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John McNally <>
Subject Re: unmavenising Commons projects
Date Fri, 21 Jun 2002 23:29:57 GMT
On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 15:25, wrote:
> On 21 Jun 2002, John McNally wrote:
> > On Fri, 2002-06-21 at 14:12, wrote:
> > > 
> > > I don't remember seeing any proposal or vote on requiring maven for
> > > the builds of commons components. 
> > 
> > Where does it say a vote is required for a component to choose a build
> > system, other than the usual vote by committers to the component?
> I don't remember seeing any vote on this subject - by commiters of the 
> components. 
> I may have missed it, but 10 votes would mean at least 30 messages, I 
> would have noticed it. Do you have pointers to the votes ? 

I'm pretty sure you are aware of this, but the usual method of voting on
changes of this kind (modifying build, source, or documentation files)
is done by viewing the changes as they occur and -1 the changes.
Otherwise you would see a lot more than 30 votes about such things.

Your choice to force projects where you are a committer to keep a
build.xml file that does not require maven is fine by me.  And it would
be up to the other committers who work on the projects to eventually
persuade you to drop the old system when they feel the new system is
adequate.  Hopefully, if you were the only committer on a project who
wanted to maintain a legacy system, you would take on the task of
keeping it up-to-date.

Since each component in commons maintains its own build system I don't
see why it should be a general concern at which point the committers on
that component decide to quit maintaining a dual build system.

> > > We do have a requirement minimising external dependencies, and 
> > > the commons components must be built and used by people who use 
> > > a variety of build systems. 
> > 
> > The requirement minimizing external dependencies is useful for users of
> > the components.  Whether a component is built using maven or directly
> > using ant does not affect whether the component can be used within a
> > larger project.
> It does - people working on a project should be able to build easily 
> all the components from commons they are using. Don't forget those
> components are shared by all projects - we all use them and maintain 
> them. 

Users of commons components would be best served by using released

> > Your requirement that any component wanting to use a standardized build
> > system also keep a freestyle version that must be kept up-to-date
> > removes the benefit of using the standardized version.  Keeping two
> > build systems that must be maintained separately is not a reasonable
> > compromise.
> There are projects that maintain both Makefile and ant, and I don't
> think it's unreasonable. 

Its not unreasonable to maintain both.  But it is unreasonable to force
a project maintain both.

john mcnally

To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
For additional commands, e-mail: <>

View raw message