Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-25 Thread Al Maw
Martijn Dashorst wrote: Our current Wicket release distribution consists of several zip files, [...] Wheee, this is almost getting religious. :) Maven 2 users just, errr, use Maven 2. :) So for the others, I'd have thought it simplest to have a single zip/tgz download containing the wicket

Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-24 Thread Jean-Baptiste Quenot
* Ingo Adler: I'm not using Maven. I use Ant and Ivy. Me too. And I'd love to see Wicket using the successful combo, but this is not (yet) the case of others[1]. I like the wicket-all idea. One version - one distribution - one download. First step: I create (or copy) an IntelliJ

Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-23 Thread Filippo Diotalevi
On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our current Wicket release distribution consists of several zip files, one for each project. Each zip contains all the dependencies for that particular project, including the wicket dependencies. This means that when you download

Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-23 Thread Frank Bille
On 1/23/07, Filippo Diotalevi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our current Wicket release distribution consists of several zip files, one for each project. Each zip contains all the dependencies for that particular project, including the wicket

Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-23 Thread Igor Vaynberg
fine. you dont use maven, but we do. why should we spend extra time packaging things in a zip, blah, blah when they are easily available to you from the maven repo? http://wicketstuff.org/maven/repository/org/apache/wicket/wicket/1.3-incubating-SNAPSHOT/

Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-23 Thread Erik van Oosten
Hi Igor, Actually, I do use maven. I just have lots of bad experiences with it. Including it screwing up my eclipse config files. I don't like it when I have to read a whole book for something simple as building (well, perhaps it is not so simple anymore :( ). - do we need to supply all

Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-23 Thread Eelco Hillenius
I'd like us to include the src jars. It should be just an option with maven, and I always hate it when I have to do it myself (like with most projects unfortunately). Eelco On 1/23/07, Erik van Oosten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Igor, Actually, I do use maven. I just have lots of bad

Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-23 Thread Igor Vaynberg
well, i dont really see the difference you can either a) go to our website download a zip extract the zip put the bin jar into your project put the src/javadoc jar into your project or b) go to our website click the link to bin jar that points to the maven repo and save that into your project

Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-23 Thread Igor Vaynberg
if you want dependencies why not download quickstart? that zip has all the deps. do you expect wicket-spring.zip to contain spring.jar? -igor On 1/23/07, Erik van Oosten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Igor, It seems like you're mixing two things: the zip-with-dependencies and the src jars.

Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-23 Thread Martijn Dashorst
Currently it does. And yes,when I download a project I typically expect it to work out of the box, no strings attached. I really hate having to hunt down dependencies which are poorly documented. I also hate it when projects include dependencies without the version info in the filename (some

Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-23 Thread Eelco Hillenius
Yeah you can, and the fact that we upload with src jars is a good thing. However, I don't expect every user to know where to find those src files, and it sure is a lot easier to just unpack them in link them to your IDE of choice directly. Eelco On 1/23/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-23 Thread Igor Vaynberg
On 1/23/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah you can, and the fact that we upload with src jars is a good thing. However, I don't expect every user to know where to find those src files, neither do i, thats why we link to them from our website! -igor and it sure is a lot

Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-23 Thread Igor Vaynberg
On 1/23/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If/when we are going to use the standard/default maven supplied templates, then we will have the following distributions readily available: http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-assembly-plugin/descriptor-refs.html why arent we already?

Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-23 Thread Igor Vaynberg
but there is no longer the pain of sf.net releases! since all our future (save 1.2.5) will be asf where you just drop files into an ftp server. so if we use default maven packaging it will remove that burden from you. -igor On 1/23/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because I like

Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-23 Thread Martijn Dashorst
That is why I 'polled' the masses: to find out if anyone is attached to our current packaging. Fortunately the @dev subscribers aren't attached to the current packaging, so we can move to the default assemblies. Martijn On 1/24/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but there is no longer

Packaging our releases

2007-01-22 Thread Martijn Dashorst
Our current Wicket release distribution consists of several zip files, one for each project. Each zip contains all the dependencies for that particular project, including the wicket dependencies. This means that when you download wicket-1.2.4.zip, wicket-spring-1.2.4.zip and

Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-22 Thread Igor Vaynberg
On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - split zips into source and binary distributions, going with the default maven assemblies +1 - remove site docs from distributions, only include a readme, the docs can be found online (http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKETxSITE) +1 -

Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-22 Thread Ryan Sonnek
+1 to Igor's response Use maven conventions as much as possible. Leave the distributions bare bones and get all extra artifacts (source, javadoc) in the maven repository. On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Other peops than core devs please voice your opinion. The

Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-22 Thread Justin Lee
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 I just use either maven or ant+maven tasks to dl the jars. I hardly dl the distro bundles at all. Martijn Dashorst wrote: Other peops than core devs please voice your opinion. The distributions are made for you. Martijn - -- Justin Lee

Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-22 Thread Justin Lee
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 I just hit reply... Igor Vaynberg wrote: maybe you shouldve posted this to @user? -gior On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Other peops than core devs please voice your opinion. The distributions are made for you.

Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-22 Thread Igor Vaynberg
that was meant for martijn not you -igor On 1/22/07, Justin Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 I just hit reply... Igor Vaynberg wrote: maybe you shouldve posted this to @user? -gior On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Re: Packaging our releases

2007-01-22 Thread Alexandre Bairos
Hi. Answers right after the questions. On 1/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our current Wicket release distribution consists of several zip files, one for each project. Each zip contains all the dependencies for that particular project, including the wicket dependencies. This