Niclas, I assume you are not subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so I keep you
CCed.
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 March 2004 23:05, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> In the case of excalibur-lifecycle vs excalibur-lifecycle-api, you
>> could have run "ant verify"
>
> Are there any other 'features' ?
Maybe, sometime I'm too deep into Gump to actually realize what is
"common knowledge" and what is not.
AFAIK the verify target is the only useful one if you are not running
a Gump process yourself.
>> If excalibur-lifecycle-api would be the better choice, we should
>> probably adapt the projects that depend on it.
>
> What _we_ (as in Avalon) should do is getting our shit together and
> unify all the divergent build organizations, if nothing else to
> simplify Gump builds.
I'm not sure. Avalon is a complex beast and so it doesn't come as a
surprise that it is difficult to describe.
How much of Avalon is using Ant to build and how much uses Maven? I'm
afraid that converting Maven builds to Ant builds adds to the
complexity much more than one would expect.
Another thing to consider is that Gump descriptors for the various
parts of Avalon are scattered into different modules. When I saw the
error messages about excalibur-lifecycle not being defined, I didn't
realize that it was a descriptor I had commit access to (and could
have tried to fix myself).
Cheers
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
