Sorry for the spotty emails. just stuff coming to my mind. Another point would be the whole deploying to the maven repository can be made easier. We want to be able to provide users with source artifacts and jar artifacts all properly packaged with maven. I can do this manually. But, i'd rather not. So, if we can accomplish all that the ant tool does and get the artifacts out to the maven repo, it would be all that much better.
Brandon On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Brandon Goodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The other thing that can be nice about maven is for ibatis extension > development. We are making iB3 more accessible. This means that we are > likely to have more people wanting to write against ibatis. Maven makes it > nicer to create dependencies on nightly builds/snapshots. > > Brandon > > > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Clinton Begin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > >> Reality check: "Signs, MD5, and Uploads to Apache dist (with no > > >> additional dependencies or configuration)" - how's this going to > > work, > > >> via telepathy? :-D > > > > Trusted hosts (or same host) and a continuous integration server with a > > manually invoked distribution target. CI server runs as the "deploy" user > > which is a trusted signatory of the Apache distribution system. > > > > Clinton > > > > > > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Larry Meadors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Brandon Goodin > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > As a follow up to all who are reading this thread. Let me be very > > > clear. Any > > > > aggressive comments are made in jest and fun. We are all good > > > friends here > > > > and enjoy the big brother banter. Please don't take this as an > > > opportunity > > > > to truly dig on any one of us. > > > > > > ...well, except for Brandon. He really is a butthead. ;-) > > > > > > Funny how everyone gets so worked up about how we'll implement > > > build.sh, isn't it? :-) > > > > > > Since everyone has an opinion on this, here's mine: I think we should > > > use Maven. > > > > > > I agree with Clinton that there aren't *problems* with the current > > > iBATIS build, but at the same time, it would simplify how we do > > > releases, because as we are seeing, there are more requests (even from > > > us) for maven artifacts by our users, and mavenizing our build will > > > make meeting our needs easier. > > > > > > IMO, the things that Clinton is asking for are not unreasonable, but > > > they are not uber-critical either. > > > > > > Let's be really honest here: How critical is it that we are able to > > > "echo arbitrary information to the command line, such as classpath in > > > use and current version being built"? Seriously? :-/ > > > > > > Reality check: "Signs, MD5, and Uploads to Apache dist (with no > > > additional dependencies or configuration)" - how's this going to work, > > > via telepathy? :-D > > > > > > It's going to be different if we use a different tool. Neither tool is > > > perfect, so yes, it'll suck. But ant sucks, too - just in a different > > > way. > > > > > > My vote is we arrange the source tree to fit what maven expects. > > > Clinton: I don't care if you don't have to do that with ant. :-P Then, > > > lets see how close we can get to all of the current ant script. If we > > > can't get 100%, I'm OK with that, if we can get close and work towards > > > that goal. > > > > > > At the end of the day, which ever one makes it easier for me to use > > > iBATIS (I really don't care about anyone else, sorry) is the one I > > > want. For me, that means Maven is the better choice. This is a one > > > time task, so maintenance is not that big of a deal, and it'll output > > > the jar (like ant does) and the maven artifacts (like ant does not). > > > It does more, and is a one time investment, let's just get it done and > > > move on. > > > > > > Larry > > > > > > > >
