river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom Hobbs <tvho...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: build mechanisms
Date Tue, 18 Jan 2011 10:21:03 GMT
> But on the other hand this work seems to be dividing the development community, so I have
to weigh up the
> benefits of pursuing it further.

This isn't a division, it's a discussion.  I don't think there's any
danger of a fork/exodus because of disagreements over whether or not
to use Ant!  :-)

The Proof Of Concept in the skunk is exactly the right way to do it.
Like I said before, let's finish the experiment then we/you can
explain the tangible benefits of one over the other.  Then we can
decide whether or not to merge.

Sim is correct, we do need to discuss what the modules are that need
to be built.  I think that largely they are self-explanatory.  And if
things are as easy as you say, then merging these two modules, and
splitting that one, and putting other code in a different one should
all be pretty easy.

It does make sense to leave the Ant build process alone until the POC
using Maven/Gradle(?) is complete and we can compare.

I don't think that Peter or anyone else is advocating throwing away
Ant until Maven is a proven *better* system.  Certainly it wouldn't be
thrown away without a vote first.  The vote can't happen until the POC
is complete and we've all had a play with it.

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Sim IJskes - QCG <sim@qcg.nl> wrote:
> On 18-01-11 09:57, Peter Firmstone wrote:
>> Perhaps you might like to assist with the investigation / experiment? We
>> can delay the vote until we've got a better understanding of the
>> benefits and pitfalls.
>> I'm just following what Dennis has donated on River-300, I'm no expert.
> I don't reject the idea that there is something better than ant for
> building. But throwing things away based on a prototype for a new build, i'm
> against.
> I'm happy with ant. If somebody else would start a design document on the
> wiki, i will contribute in a positive and constructive way, even if that
> means that ant has to go in the end. But i wont contribute any time to the
> build process (other than the design effort) until this has been resolved, i
> consider it wasted time if i do.
> Please do not confuse this with a +1 vote for removing the old build system.
> The vote should come after the design phase.
> Gr. Sim
> --
> QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
> Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397

View raw message