commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <>
Subject Re: [all] Maven, help or hinderance?
Date Sun, 04 Dec 2005 06:34:43 GMT


Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 12/3/05, Stephen Colebourne <> wrote:
>>  >>Hate to be an "old fart" here but was ant really all that bad?

I had to laugh seeing this topic crop up. The problems were with site
generation, as mentioned in another thread - something that wouldn't
exist in Ant without another tool that would likely come with its own
set of problems.

I agree that old releases should be reproducible and its an issue that
its not here (at least when it comes to site generation). I can assure
you we took this into consideration for Maven 2.

Maven 1.0 *should* be able to use plugin dependencies - I haven't looked
into why it wasn't working for Phil.

I'm not sure what the best solution is to reproducing a build that was
in CVS at the time, that is now in SVN.

Anyway, I'm too biased to participate in a flame thread, but I'll add
something constructive...

> I would not recommend a wholesale move to maven 2 at this time, as the
> plugins are still getting completed and I am afraid the frustration
> level would actually get worse if we started going there immediately. 
> I think that if we solve a few simple problems with maven 1 and update
> the docs, we can make things easy enough for RMs and volunteers both.

I think the main reason not to move to Maven 2 yet is that it would
fragment commons, which would be an issue. At the least there should be
parallel builds.

> At apachecon, Brett and I are going to work on finding a better way to
> share navigation structures across sites.  The current XML entities
> approach is going to break in maven 1.1 and is also a bit confusing. 
> All are welcome to join us, or obviously to post ideas on how to do
> this.

Indeed. I was actually going to discuss with relation to Maven 2.0,
though, as its a much better platform for achieving the goals. I was
already thinking I'd use commons as the test platform for multiproject
site support. Hopefully this will also give me the chance to inject some
effort into site-dev.

As for nightly builds and site publishing - I'm more than happy to drop
any commons builds that don't extend commons-build into continuum on our
zone and publish jars and/or sites, and grant access to people who are
interested in working with it. I hadn't extended that offer yet as I'm
still waiting on an official answer on the permanency of the zone setup
- but I think that AC will see that come to pass too.

Hope this helps.


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

View raw message