incubator-cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Dusbabek <gdusba...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Thoughts on issue 697 (Mitigate unpublished dependencies when using Cassandra with Maven)
Date Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:24:29 GMT
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 12:42, Hannes Schmidt <hannes@eyealike.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 6:21 AM, Gary Dusbabek <gdusbabek@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Cassandra is a community of volunteers.  If someone is willing to take
>> that half-hour and make Cassandra a mvn-friendly place and maintain it
>> whilst moving forward, I say let it happen.  Make it easy for us to
>> package a release and push it to a repo.
>
> Ahh, the standard OS defense. ;-) I would deploy these jars to the public
> Maven repo in a second, if I had the creds to do so.
>

What we really need is someone to own this by being willing to support
mvn users, respond to the jira tickets they generate, and send patches
to the committers.

>>
>> Nobody has stepped up to do this though.  We had a pom in trunk for
>> quite a while.  None of the developers used it, and therefore had no
>> motivation to maintain it.
>
> None of them used it probably because it's hidden the contrib folder and
> they already had a working Ant build. You can't seriously maintain two build
> systems for a project. It doesn't make sense and that's why nobody adopted
> the alternative build system.
>

It was in the root of trunk.

>>
>> > Sorry for the rant but taking shortcuts like this forces every Maven
>> > user
>> > down the stream to either do the work for you, e.g to deploy the
>> > Cassandra
>> > JAR and its dependencies to their local repository or take the very same
>> > shortcut.
>>
>> I disagree that every project should do things the mvn way for the
>> sake of making things easier for mvn users.
>
> No, but maybe every Apache project should?
>

Why?  "To make things easier for mvn users" isn't enough of an
argument to convince me.

>>
>> > If I want to use the client in my own Maven-built project, I
>> > can't do so without manually deploying those two JARs along with the
>> > Hector
>> > JAR to my local repository.
>> >
>>
>> I've been there, and I feel your pain.  Pushing three jars to your
>> local repo isn't a big deal though.  If you're working on a team,
>> deploying three more jars on your nexus repo isn't too hard either.
>>
>
> Why don't you do it then? If you did it, you'd save many others from having
> to do it. This isn't a you-vs-me kinda problem. It's a you-vs-many problem.
>

I don't wish to be the one to support it.  Past experience has turned
me off to mvn.  I have a me-vs-mvn problem.

>>
>> Gary.
>>
>> > To add fuel to the fire, I don't think that there is a real need for
>> > two coexisting build systems for Cassandra (I'm speaking of Ant/Ivy and
>> > Maven) but even if you decide to go with Ant/Ivy, the resulting
>> > artifacts
>> > should all be accessible in a public Maven repository. This is pretty
>> > much a
>> > convention for any OS project of Cassandra's reach and maturity.
>> >
>> > -- Hannes
>> >
>
> If I had more trust in the team's motivation to embrace a what I believe is
> a truly better build tool than Ant/Ivy I would spend the time of migrating
> Cassandra to Maven on an experimental branch and let you guys take a look.
> But for this to work and be true evidence of Maven's superiority, the jars
> in libs/ need to go away, hence this thread.

I think that's an unfair judgment.  Seriously--what's stopping you
sending in a patch that updates the pom and leaves us with artifacts
that can be pushed to a mvn repo?  Wouldn't that satisfy your needs.

Gary.

Mime
View raw message