river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Firmstone <j...@zeus.net.au>
Subject Re: Closing out release 2.2.0
Date Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:31:11 GMT
Jonathan Costers wrote:
> One thing we could do more or less now is publish the River artifacts into a
> Maven repository somewhere.
We need to confirm the dependencies are correct, no one should need to 
depend on the *-dl.jar artefacts, the API that clients and services 
depend on are in the platform.jar  The *-dl.jar artefacts are free to 
change there is no coupling, although we've discussed creating a 
Codebase Entry, so the *-dl.jar's can be provisioned.

The *-dl.jar actually depends on the platform.jar and the client and 
service also depend on the platform.jar

> Basic POMs are already available as well as an Ant target to process them,
> we only need details of where to publish the artifacts to.
> At least people using Maven in their own projects will be able to easily use
> the River artifacts.
> We can have Hudson build and publish both stable releases and snapshots,
> etc.
We have to sign and vote on the artefacts for stable releases.

River 2.1.2 has been released since approx march.  I'm not sure yet 
whether the next release will be 2.2.0 or 2.1.3 yet.



> See also:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RIVER-317
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RIVER-300
> 2010/8/26 Benson Margulies <bimargulies@gmail.com>
>> Oh, my, I'm sorry I started this. Look, go ahead, I'd advise, as you
>> are. Those of you with curiosity can look into maven as used on other
>> Apache project, and you can consider this alternative some day.
>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> wrote:
>>> On 8/26/2010 1:59 AM, Sim IJskes - QCG wrote:
>>>> On 08/26/2010 10:37 AM, Patrick Wright wrote:
>>>>> A big advantage of Maven is that all the major Java editors all allow
>>>>> you to open a project by opening a POM file. All resources, paths,
>>>>> etc. are immediately configured. This is a big plus for people who
>>>>> want to explore the code and possibly contribute. Dependency
>>>>> management is also much more straightforward using Maven.
>>>> I dont see a problem with dependency management with the current
>>>> situation. If you create a dependency, you should include the stuff you
>>>> depend on. A pom file for the final result to use river as a maven
>>>> dependency should cause no problems. But we should differentiate between
>>>> offering a set of jars with a pom file, and using it for building river
>>>> altogether.
>>>> As to repeatability, maven is very easy to use when you take the trunk
>>>> of a project, but if you want an older version, and rebuild, my personal
>>>> experience is that its much harder. When i was bitten by maven, it was
>>>> in circumstances where dependencies had disappeared. So my personal
>>>> experience proved to me that it is hard for opensource projects to have
>>>> the discipline to ensure that one can produce repeatable builds for
>>>> older versions at some point in the future.
>>>> And thats something i find very important. Or are you saying, ok, as a
>>>> developer-user of river, you live with the build of the day, and if you
>>>> want to have something stable, you should ensure stable baselines
>>>> yourself?
>>>> The current situation ensures these stable baselines.
>>> Hmmm. I must admit to a very serious case of Maven-ignorance. Both Ant
>> and
>>> dear, old, familiar Make allow one to keep the build control files under
>>> revision control along with the thing being built. Is there something
>>> preventing applying that strategy to Maven's control file?
>>> Nailing down when the servicediscovery test regression happened involved
>>> checking out and building about half a dozen intermediate revisions
>> between
>>> the release that worked and the head revision that failed.
>>> Patricia

View raw message