lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan McKinley <ryan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: discussion about release frequency.
Date Sat, 18 Sep 2010 20:51:54 GMT
Note, I am *not* suggesting that maven is the best tool etc etc...
that is not a discussion worth having here.

I am saying that the maven artifacts (pom files etc) generate in
3.x/trunk work well if you are using maven/ivy.  I don't see why we
want to drop that from the release?


On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Jason Rutherglen
<jason.rutherglen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> the maven stuff in 3.x/trunk is actually pretty good
>
> I've heard that about every release of Maven, and any time I've tried
> to use it, it doesn't quite work as expected, and given what it does
> should be fairly trivial, the fact that there bugs/issues, and it's
> been released to me has meant I don't want to use it.  It's like a
> toaster that also plays videos, I just want a toaster, thanks.
>
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Ryan McKinley <ryantxu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Robert Muir <rcmuir@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Mark Miller <markrmiller@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, you have always claimed that as de jure, I think defacto is that
>>>> it's part of the release. And the defacto is to follow the 'release to
>>>> do' best as makes sense (I'm not sure the Solr release to do wiki always
>>>> makes much sense). I've been waiting for the day that you release Lucene
>>>> and drop all consideration for Maven as you have said you would likely
>>>> do - but I think most of us feel it's pretty much on the list and this
>>>> general agreement will free us of our conscious. I was ready to follow
>>>> your coat tails to freedom, but this way lets me off easier I think.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just my opinion: (personally i do not use maven, nor understand it).
>>> If maven support is beneficial to bringing more devs to lucene, we should
>>> consider what we can do.
>>> But at the same time, perhaps Makefiles would bring more devs, too.
>>> My problem with releasing with maven is that i could not honestly even +1 my
>>> own release artifacts, because i don't know what the hell is going on with
>>> the maven artifacts.
>>> There has to be a way to let the "maven experts" take care of this stuff
>>> somehow, if its really going to be beneficial.
>>
>> As a maven user (not an expert by any means), the maven stuff in
>> 3.x/trunk is actually pretty good.  Running:
>>  ant generate-maven-artifacts -Dmaven.dist.dir=maven -Dversion=4.0.rxxx
>> makes a folder (maven) with everything it needs.  This is *very* easy
>> for maven apps to test against.
>>
>> What are the deploy steps that we are talking about dropping/changing?
>>
>>
>> - - - -
>>
>> As an aside, I still think it is worth changing our dev builds from
>> "-dev.jar" to "-SNAPSHOT.jar" so that the daily builds are
>> automatically valid SNAPSHOT builds that are easy for maven/ivy users
>> to work with.  (LUCENE-2493)  As is, maven users have to checkout and
>> build with a special version to test/use a dev build -- since this is
>> more work then many people want to deal with, we find problems with
>> the maven pom files *after* the official release.
>>
>>
>> ryan
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message