On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Antonio Gallardo wrote: > Giacomo Pati dijo: > > But first we need to come to a consensus about which build > > infrastructure we would support to use: > > > > 1) Ant > > in this case we can use the current build system and tune it to the > > needs we have for the 2.2 and maybe add some ruper task to get rid > > of jars in our repository (suggested by Nicola Ken IIRC) and some > > more for modularisation ease > > > > 2) Centipede > > in this case I could not volunteer as I'm out of Centipede since > > their move from Cents to Antlibs (we still have some customer > > project using a Cents based version of it but they will never move > > to Antlibs) > > > > 3) Maven > > ATM this is my preferred build infrastructure and I could help > > building the 2.2 repo based on it > > Hi: > > I think this Ant vs. (Centipede or Maven) is a not fair comparation. Check > this: http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-maven/ > > From the above document: > <snip> > A Maven goal can contain any valid Ant task in its definition, which will > help you quickly learn Maven and protect your Ant investments. > </snip> > > Then Ant can be present in the 3 options presented. I share with you the > need to move to a better project management. In that case I think the > question is related to Centiped vs. Maven.
Well, all three infrastructure mentioned above are Ant, Ant based or use Ant. I mentiond 1) because Stefano argumented that the build infratruction at present is good enough in his eyes. > With this options presented, my vote is: > > Maven +1 > > Best Regards, > > Antonio Gallardo. > > > -- Giacomo Pati Otego AG, Switzerland - http://www.otego.com Orixo, the XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
