geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Updated: (GERONIMO-2161) [RTC] Remove Geronimo modules from dependencyManagement in root pom.xml
Date Thu, 06 Jul 2006 19:35:44 GMT
FYI, with the latest patch, you can just:

     ./build

But, this also needs openejb2 to be built with m2 first.

You can also create an uber-clean build with:

     ./bootstrap

  * * *

I'm happy to tidy some of this stuff up post commit, but right now I  
am not going to make any more cosmetic or friendliness changes until  
this has been vote in.

--jason


On Jul 6, 2006, at 4:32 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:

>     The existing commands to build are -
> cd modules, mvn clean
> cd ..\m2-plugins, mvn
> and After this as long as you do not wipe out the plugin, one can use
> just mvn from the top directory to get a full build.
>     Did these not work for you (after you had the right xmlbeans
> plugin)?
>     The new build (GERONIMO-2161) uses 2 step process -
> mvn -Dstaqge=bootstrap
> mvn -Dstage=assemble
>    The bootstrap stage still builds all the modules! The assemble  
> stage
> does not build them. User will be forced to always use 2 commannds -
> clean repo or not. Which I think is not very user firendly.
>     Hiding building modules and plugins in a bootstrap phase is more
> user friendly. Because the users will not be exposed to the  
> shortcoming
> of maven.
>
> Thanks
> Anita
> --- Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com> wrote:
>
>> What "user friendliness" are you talking about?
>>
>> --jason
>>
>>
>> On Jul 5, 2006, at 2:25 AM, anita kulshreshtha wrote:
>>
>>>    I would also prefer to see any changes to improve the
>>> maintainability  and user friendliness of M2 build be held off
>> until
>>> the server assembly is functional.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Anita
>>>
>>> --- David Jencks <david_jencks@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:25 AM, John Sisson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jacek Laskowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/3/06, Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> NOTE... the m2 build in trunk is already broken... this patches
>>>> help
>>>>>>> FIX MANY OF THOSE PROBLEMS!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NOTED, but... it's not broken. it has never worked so we can
>>>> pretend
>>>>>> to call it broken. It's a small, but important point we cannot
>>>>>> dismiss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since the official build is still m1 and this will not affect
>> the
>>>> m1
>>>>>>> build, I don't see why your point about breakage is applicable
>> at
>>>>
>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> When I first created the m1 build for Geronimo years ago there
>>>> were
>>>>>>> certainly a few moments of breakage due to build changes, but
>>>> since
>>>>>>> there was no commit by committee junk going on then it was easy
>>>> to
>>>>>>> just fix when things happened to get a bit askew.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The branch idea was just to make it easier to actually make
>>>>>>> progress,
>>>>>>> as I am move on this stuff way way faster than the lot of you
>> can
>>>>>>> react to emails and JIRAs which often (as this one did) need
>>>> several
>>>>>>> sets of emails to clarify.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the point in RTC - discussing, discussing, over and over
>>>>>> again.
>>>>>> I'm not in favour of RTC, but some of its rules are fine. It
>>>> fosters
>>>>>> discussions we lacked. That's the main point of RTC. Isn't it
>>>> funny
>>>>>> that you've mentioned it as an argument against RTC?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's wrong with committing changes made in the branch back to
>>>> trunk
>>>>>> once they've been tested? My proposal is not to wait until the
>>>>>> migration is done, but rather apply it in small portions,
>>>> gradually.
>>>>>> It should work, shouldn't it? I'd greatly appreciate your
>> comment
>>>> on
>>>>>> it as I guess I don't see the whole picture and keep thinking
>> the
>>>>>> branch might help when others have already seen it would fall
>>>> short.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Can we avoid the concerns that have been aired regarding svn
>>>>> merging issues when directories are reorganised by leaving the
>>>>> reorganization of directories as a last phase of the m2
>> migration?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have thought that we could move further along with the
>>>>> migration without reorganizing directories (AFAIK, maven should
>> be
>>>>
>>>>> able to work with existing directory structures, although doing
>> so
>>>>
>>>>> may incur more work).  We would also need to coordinate the
>>>>> reorganization of directories with the owners of other branches
>>>>> from trunk, to minimize the impact on them.
>>>>
>>>> I would prefer to wait to reorganize the directories until after
>> the
>>>>
>>>> work in the dead-1.2 branch is merged with trunk.  I plan to go
>> back
>>>>
>>>> to this activity now.  Other committers may wish to note that
>> merging
>>>>
>>>> the work in dead-1.2 should not need RTC as it is already part of
>> a
>>>> main development line.
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>> david jencks
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>>> --jason
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacek
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> Do You Yahoo!?
>>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>> http://mail.yahoo.com
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com


Mime
View raw message