commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] [LANG] Release Commons Lang 3.0 (based on RC2)
Date Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:38:25 GMT
On 4/12/11 12:45 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>> On 4/10/11 11:44 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>> Hi Hen,
>>>
>>> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Phil Steitz <phil.steitz@gmail.com>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>>> * One last nit - why did we decide to dump the Ant build. Version
>>>>> 2.6 seems to have a working Ant build. Why wouldn't the same build
>>>>> work for 3.0. If you are OK with this, I will try to get the Ant
>>>>> build restored.
>>>> IIRC, because no one was maintaining it. I've dumped other Ant builds
>>>> in other components too over the last 4 years (along with maven1
>>>> builds). I'm generally -1 to the "there are many ways to build it"
>>>> approach. It takes the pain of dealing with one build system and
>>>> increases it to 3x the pain. [manage build1, manage build2 and then
>>>> ensure build1 and build2 stay in sync].
>>> Same here. Why deliver two build scripts .. is anybody actually keen on
>>> ensuring that both builds generate the same stuff? What do we vote on
>>> then?
>>>
>> We vote on what goes to dist/
>>
>> The point of keeping a working Ant build is for users who want to
>> build from source and are not Maven users (many, many users in the
>> real world).
> My point is that there are quite some distros (Debian, Gentoo, ...) and 
> vendors (jBoss) that will always build on their own. Can we ensure that the 
> Ant build will always create the same artifacts?
We can ensure that they are built from the same sources, including
the same files with the same source and compile targets.  We
obviously can't control what JDKs the third parties use, etc. 
Remember that we provide binaries as a convenience to users only and
what we are really releasing is *source code*.  A working Ant build
is valuable source code, IMO.  Users are free to hack that or the
maven build to their hearts' content.  The only "contract" regarding
binaries is that whatever we distribute needs to be reproducible
them from the source distro.  If we use maven to create the
binaries, then maven can be used to reproduce (hopefully) the
distribution binaries.

Phil
> - Jörg
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message