Mailing-List: contact java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of grant.ingersoll@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.132.240 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:content-type:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer;
        b=bWHI2Aaf/ff/nndLnhI2QeSRB9F9ZmJL5cD6plB3buNYB627INuOnVFjnJbTOP7DKH84Idf7eJs0V1Xh/1355t9ilQo3z+cNPLKGc9EQBl6iz4nnHIRUOKWhorULL+iNWzPStz9B6Iz0nKff5l6MQvCpaknQxJJR6ztP4ezeGXc=
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
In-Reply-To: <14322994.1180981286215.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
References: <14322994.1180981286215.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <CAFAC36C-7CD6-48A2-991B-FD36DA17F26D@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Grant Ingersoll <grant.ingersoll@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-622) Provide More of Lucene For Maven
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 16:39:54 -0400
To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org


On Jun 4, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Hoss Man (JIRA) wrote:

>
>     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-622? 
> page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment- 
> tabpanel#action_12501305 ]
>
> Hoss Man commented on LUCENE-622:
> ---------------------------------
>
> I didn't review Karl's attachemnt (the nice thing about patch's is  
> that you can read them easily in a web browser, tgz files need to  
> be downloaded and uncompressed)
>
> "This whole bolting on of Maven to ANT just seems a little weird to  
> me" ... that's kind of funny Grant, it was your suggestion that  
> prompted the approach in Sami's patch...
>
> http://www.nabble.com/Maven-artifacts-for-Lucene.*- 
> tf3551707.html#a9941458
>   "Couldn't we just add various ANT targets that package the jars per
>     the Maven way, and even copy them to the appropriate places?  I
>     wonder how hard it would be to have ANT output the POM and
>     create Maven Jars."
>

Uh, temporary insanity today, I guess.  :-)

It just struck me funny today.  I think when I saw that Karl put in a  
patch claiming to have most all of it in place, and I figured we  
might as well jump in.

> Personally I'm much more in favor of baby steps (add an ant task to  
> prepare the maven artifacts) then completely throwing out the build  
> system and starting over from scratch with maven.  ... if we have  
> maven artifacts and people really start using them, then it might  
> make sense to revist the "migrate to maven" issue ... for now  
> though it seems like everyone is comfortable with ant, and not  
> every one knows/understands maven.

Right.  I guess I was suggesting parallel support for a little while,  
but there really would never be any incentive to force the issue.  My  
Maven 2 experience has been ambiguous to date.  We are in the process  
of upgrading from M1.  In a lot of ways, things are much better than  
both ANT and M1, but in a lot of ways, it just isn't there yet and it  
has been frustrating getting help and finding documentation.  For the  
"usual" cases, I think M2 works great, but in less common cases, it  
isn't so great.   Lucene probably fits into the usual cases, so we  
would probably be fine.

At any rate, sorry for the confusion.  I am fine w/ whichever way  
works out.

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