Vote : +1 The split between stable and incubator looks like a very good idea.
JPMS also seems an important step. Regards, Le mer. 9 août 2023, 11:55, Johann Sorel <[email protected]> a écrit : > I'm fine with JPMS. +1 > It will be great with jlink and graalvm for standalone applications. > > I understand that gradle is necessary, until a better build tool comes > up, so I'm okay with it being merged. > > Johann Sorel > > > > Le 09/08/2023 à 11:10, Martin Desruisseaux a écrit : > > Hello Johann > > > > Thank for your vote. So in my understanding it can be split as below: > > > > * Source code restructuring: +1 > > * JPMS modularisation: not voted > > * Migration to Gradle: -1 > > > > Unfortunately those 3 topics cannot be separated. I would also have > > liked a simpler solution than Gradle, but I'm not aware of any of > > them. A constraint is that it must be a build tools supported by IDE, > > and on Apache NetBeans side there is only three: Ant, Maven and Gradle. > > > > It would be nice if IDE makers could agree on a standard set of > > interfaces for plugin an arbitrary build tools to an IDE, something > > like the "Open Test Alliance for the JVM" created for unit tests [1]. > > > > Martin > > > > [1]https://github.com/ota4j-team/opentest4j > > > > > > Le 09/08/2023 à 10:02, Johann Sorel a écrit : > > > >> My vote is neither +1 or -1. > >> > >> +1 : > >> Better module management and the side effect of future incubator > >> modules. > >> > >> -1 : > >> Gradle, I have a very limited experience with it and will surely have > >> a hard time with it, > >> My concerns are only related to a deep personal dislike of this build > >> tool, both the script syntax and the way things are managed/unordered. > >> I won't argument on it since this is not the place, maybe with time I > >> will come to like it ... or not ... > >> > >> So my vote is 0. > > >
