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: build mechanisms
Date Fri, 14 Jan 2011 09:54:10 GMT
Sim IJskes - QCG wrote:
> On 13-01-11 12:47, Tom Hobbs wrote:
>> Personally, I feel a sense of "if it's not broken...".  I think it was
>> Dan (but maybe not) who said that the build is the way it is because
>> "it works".
> Exactly. Before we step into a new build system, we should first 
> determine what is actually wrong with the current build system.
>> But that aside, does using something other than Ant give a tangible
>> benefit?  If "yes", then I have no objection.
> Exactly, if there are big benefits, then i would accept another 
> system. Now we have a system where many have invested their time in, 
> and are we going to throw this away?
>> The work to move to Maven has already been done, yes?
> Maven as a way to deliver the jars to users of river i have no problem 
> with. I see no benefit in building river with maven.
>>> Do we want to support 2 build systems?
>> A thousand times "no".  :-)
> +1
> PS: The effect on me, these new build systems in the pipeline, have a 
> paralyzing effect. I looked at the build graph of river, and saw 
> cosmetic problem, and thought, why should i put the time in to fix it, 
> now, to have the ant system ripped out in a months time?
> Gr. Sim
Hang in there Sim, the benefits will become more apparent once it's 
completed, we have to bake the cake before you can taste it.



View raw message