commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Yandell <>
Subject Re: unmavenising Commons projects
Date Fri, 21 Jun 2002 22:02:40 GMT

> > Again, I have nothing against providing an optional build file for
> > maven and/or centipede - but I think it is a very serious issue if
> > commons components can't be built with plain ant and minimal
> > pain.
> 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.

Keeping two build systems is a classic way to migrate from one build
system to the other. You maintain the old one while putting the new one in
place. Currently we break the old one by zapping its build.xml file.

Not all projects document how to install them properly now. Some do,
although all they do is point off to Maven. I have an issue here in that
the Maven documentation is based on the current version and not the latest
stable version. So we either give the cvs-checkout person no clue how to
install [email, graph2, xo] or they just point to the maven website.

The maven website gives me version worries, but I think I'm being a bit
paranoid there so expect to get flamed for the suggestion that the maven
docs are too recent :)


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

View raw message