lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steven A Rowe <sar...@syr.edu>
Subject RE: discussion about release frequency.
Date Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:53:34 GMT
On 9/20/2010 at 12:35 PM, Robert Muir wrote:
> So maybe its premature to vote on this part, but at the same
> time, I have concerns about what it would take to 'fully
> support' maven.
>
> For example, if we have to reorganize our source tree to
> what it wants (src/main/java, src/main/test), and rename our
> artifacts to what it wants (-SNAPSHOT, etc), this is pretty
> important. what else might maven 'require'.

Producing maven artifacts does not now and will not require source tree reorg.  If the build
itself were converted from Ant to Maven, some reorg would likely be required, but there are
way too many dead bodies that would have to be trampled on before Lucene/Solr Ant->Maven
build conversion could happen...

The -SNAPSHOT.jar renaming thing is because that is the only suffix Maven recognizes as a
snapshot, for which special handling is required, so that the latest version is always acquired
from the Maven repository by local builds depending on Lucene/Solr artifacts.

> its also my understanding that in the past, when maven is
> upgraded (e.g. Maven 2), it might require you to modify your
> project in ways such as this to fit its new "needs".

AFAICT, Maven 3.0 is fairly close to release (in 3rd beta release).  One of the goals of this
release is maximizing backward compatibility, so I don't think this is anywhere near as much
of a concern as it was last time around (1->2).  Here are detailed compatibility notes:

<https://cwiki.apache.org/MAVEN/maven-3x-compatibility-notes.html>

Nothing major there, and in a non-Maven build that just wants to produce Maven artifacts,
probably no concerns at all (IMHO).

Steve

Mime
View raw message