commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Keyes <>
Subject Re: unmavenising Commons projects
Date Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:44:26 GMT
Folks the discussion here should not be about what GUMP is or
what Maven is.  It should be about standardizing the build 
process for Commons.  

It seems that the general consensus is that to satisfy all 
parties there should be two ant projects, build.xml and
build-maven.xml.  Could this issue be resolved with just one 
project, build.xml.

The default target for this project must generate the binary
distribution.  If the default target is 'dist' then both scenarios
could be accomodated as follows:

<target name="dist" depends="ant-dist, maven-dist"/>

<target name="ant-dist" unless="maven.home">

<target name="maven-dist" if="maven.home">

Just an idea,
-John K

On Mon, 2002-06-24 at 08:24, Henri Yandell wrote:
> > > Just don't try to present ant as 'legacy' and replace the build.xml
> > > and the conventions we use with something else.
> > Who is? Where has someone declared ant as 'legacy'? And please tell me
> > about the consistent conventions used across commons....
> My fault. I've been referring to the build.xml's that were replaced as
> legacy build.xml's that should be kept until we maven is at a point where
> we can consider standardising on it.
> Hen
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <>

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

View raw message