zookeeper-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Han <h...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Ever considered using buck to build?
Date Fri, 05 May 2017 23:00:22 GMT
Sounds reasonable. I think we need decide how BUCK participate in various
workflows - for example does apache pre-build commit and daily build need
to build with BUCK (in addition to building with ant), or not. I assume
that's also why Camille mentioned Jenkins.

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Patrick White <pwhite@fb.com> wrote:

> My intent at this point is not to replace anything, just to add the
> ability to build with buck. Maintaining multiple build systems is a pain
> for sure, but I'd wager the majority of the burden of buck maintenance
> would fall on Facebook since we're the primary users of it to build
> zookeeper at this point.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Michael Han <hanm@cloudera.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 3:02:51 PM
> To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Ever considered using buck to build?
>
> Is this proposal intended to use BUCK to replace ant someday, or just add
> BUCK as an alternative build system? I thought it's not replacing ant, but
> I want double check, because choosing a build system vs support multiple
> build system are different topics.
>
>
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Patrick White <pwhite@fb.com> wrote:
>
> > My bad, I'll clarify.
> >
> >
> > Internally, we build and test with buck, but we don't worry about the
> > bin,conf,share,etc folders. So it's a thing that is possible (and I'll
> > certainly do it if there's interest) we just haven't put effort behind it
> > because... well we don't use it that way.
> >
> > re: jenkins. uhhhh... I'll have to get back to you on that one. (never
> > used it, but I'll go download it and see what shakes loose)
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Camille Fournier <camille@apache.org>
> > Sent: Friday, May 5, 2017 2:11:15 PM
> > To: dev@zookeeper.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Ever considered using buck to build?
> >
> > Did you... Just list as a con that actually it currently won't work?
> >
> > Does it work on Jenkins?
> >
> > On May 5, 2017 4:51 PM, "Patrick White" <pwhite@fb.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Howdy! I'm Patrick from the core systems team at Facebook, and I work
> on
> > > ZooKeeper and ZooKeeper accessories all day long.
> > >
> > > Proposal: I want to add BUCK files to the zookeeper source tree.
> > >
> > >
> > > Hear me out:
> > >
> > > TL; DR - I want to hear everyone's thoughts and opinions on the matter.
> > >
> > >
> > > At Facebook, we use buck (buckbuild.com) to build everything. Buck
> turns
> > > out to be a really nice build system. It's easy to set up and super
> > fast. I
> > > love buck.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ben put together some nice BUCK files that we use internally to build
> > > zookeeper and zkcli. Since we're already working to sync back with
> > > upstream, we'd love to get them in.
> > >
> > >
> > > Pros:
> > >
> > > Buck files are a lot easier to work with than maven, ant, or anything
> > else
> > >
> > > Buck's fast
> > >
> > > These files do absolutely nothing for or against people who want to use
> > > maven or ant
> > >
> > > 'java_binary' generates a single executable file containing all the
> jars
> > >
> > >
> > > Cons:
> > >
> > > Not one of the "conventional" java build systems
> > >
> > > BUCK files laying around are just trash for people not interested in
> them
> > >
> > > Doesn't currently generate the typical layout of bin, conf, share, etc.
> > >
> > >   - *currently*, it could probably be done
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers
> Michael.
>



-- 
Cheers
Michael.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message