:) Phil Steitz wrote: > On 12/3/05, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>Hate to be an "old fart" here but was ant really all that bad?
I had to laugh seeing this topic crop up. The problems were with site generation, as mentioned in another thread - something that wouldn't exist in Ant without another tool that would likely come with its own set of problems. I agree that old releases should be reproducible and its an issue that its not here (at least when it comes to site generation). I can assure you we took this into consideration for Maven 2. Maven 1.0 *should* be able to use plugin dependencies - I haven't looked into why it wasn't working for Phil. I'm not sure what the best solution is to reproducing a build that was in CVS at the time, that is now in SVN. Anyway, I'm too biased to participate in a flame thread, but I'll add something constructive... > I would not recommend a wholesale move to maven 2 at this time, as the > plugins are still getting completed and I am afraid the frustration > level would actually get worse if we started going there immediately. > I think that if we solve a few simple problems with maven 1 and update > the docs, we can make things easy enough for RMs and volunteers both. I think the main reason not to move to Maven 2 yet is that it would fragment commons, which would be an issue. At the least there should be parallel builds. > > At apachecon, Brett and I are going to work on finding a better way to > share navigation structures across sites. The current XML entities > approach is going to break in maven 1.1 and is also a bit confusing. > All are welcome to join us, or obviously to post ideas on how to do > this. > Indeed. I was actually going to discuss with relation to Maven 2.0, though, as its a much better platform for achieving the goals. I was already thinking I'd use commons as the test platform for multiproject site support. Hopefully this will also give me the chance to inject some effort into site-dev. As for nightly builds and site publishing - I'm more than happy to drop any commons builds that don't extend commons-build into continuum on our zone and publish jars and/or sites, and grant access to people who are interested in working with it. I hadn't extended that offer yet as I'm still waiting on an official answer on the permanency of the zone setup - but I think that AC will see that come to pass too. Hope this helps. Cheers, Brett --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
