jakarta-cactus-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Vincent Massol" <vmas...@pivolis.com>
Subject RE: Building Cactus with Maven -> I'd like to volonteer
Date Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:22:55 GMT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: news [mailto:news@main.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Lenz
> Sent: 25 June 2003 12:47
> To: cactus-user@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Building Cactus with Maven -> I'd like to volonteer
> 
> Vincent Massol wrote:
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Julien Dubois [mailto:julien@julien-dubois.com]
> >>Sent: 23 June 2003 21:26
> >>To: cactus-user@jakarta.apache.org
> >>Subject: Building Cactus with Maven -> I'd like to volonteer
> >>
> >>I don't want to spend too much time downloading stuff/configuring
> >>eclipse, so I'd like to volonteer for porting Cactus to Maven. I see
>  >>that you plan to do so, and I've already worked with Maven before,
so
>  >>I think I should be able to help.
> 
> I don't think that a migration to Maven will be faster than
downloading a
> couple of JARs, but anyway...

certainly not! There are several order of magnitude of complexity and
time differences... Julien, I hope that this is not your only motivation
:-)

> 
> > Very cool :-). I'm all for trying the move to Maven. However, there
is
> > one rule that I'd like us to follow: we must not loose any build
feature
> > when moving to Maven compared to our existing Ant build. This will
be
> > *very* challenging and will require Maven changes too (but that's
ok,
> > I'm a Maven committer and I can commit these changes).
> >
> > So here's my suggestion:
> > - you start making the move for some subproject. Probably starting
with
> > jakarta-cactus/framework is the easiest
> > - you send us the patch on the Cactus dev mailing list
> > - we'll review it and comment on it
> > - if ok, I'll create a branch until we finish releasing Cactus 1.5
and
> > then move the Maven build to HEAD.
> > - as you get more and more confident about the Cactus build and if
> > you're still interested in participating and maintaining the Cactus
> > build, then we would eventually be able to vote you in as a
committer
> > (please realize that we will need to ensure of your commitment and
> > Cactus build knowledge before making such a decision).
> 
> deja vu
> http://archives.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=cactus-
> dev@jakarta.apache.org&msgId=371570
> ;-)

hey, that's true. Jason, what's up? :-)

> 
> > What you must realize is that once you start working on this, you'll
> > have to help us all the way till the full Maven build works. It will
be
> > a long running project as we're doing clever stuff in the Ant
build...
> > :-)
> 
> Let me add a couple of concerns/requirements:
> 
> - We should not depend on Maven CVS HEAD or SNAPSHOT-something for the
> build, only on a released "stable" version. Of course that would slow
down
> the migration if our build requires changes to Maven, because we'd
need to
> wait until those changes get incorporated into a release.

Hum... Why not view it this way:
- we use the latest Maven from CVS (we have to) to create the build
system
- once we consider it good enough for our users we wait for a stable
Maven release and announce it as ready.

> 
> - Instead of putting the Maven-based build into a branch, we should be
> able
> to just put it in CVS HEAD. But maybe I'm missing something, and it
may
> conflict with the Ant-based build?

No it's not conflicting. I'd just not like to commit something that is
half working in HEAD for the 1.5 release with is Real Soon Now (TM) :-)

> 
> - The Ant build files remain the authorative, official build process
> *until*
> a vote is casted and agreed upon to completely switch to Maven.

Yep. Agreed.

> 
> - Cactus *must* be buildable by Gump. While I don't know the details,
it
> seems like many Mavenized projects either don't care about Gump, or
keep a
> separately maintained Ant build file. IIRC Maven can autogenerate Ant
> build
> files, but how well does that work for a non-trivial project?

Not sure here. I'd say the requirements is that there is at least a
nightly build done with recent versions of dependencies. I'm not sure it
has to be done by gump though. But ok to start with this req.

> 
> - I don't like the default Maven documentation/site style. It should
be
> possible to keep our current style, which we put a lot of work into.

... or improve the Maven style... ;-)

Honestly, my interest in moving the build to Maven is twice:
- get a simpler build system for Cactus
- at the same time, test and improve Maven using Cactus as a guinea pig.
In other words, I trust in Maven but it has some rough edges and using a
real and complex project to smoothen them is the best way to go I
believe.

That said, getting help from Jason would also help tremendously... ;-)

Thanks
-Vincent


Mime
View raw message