On 27-Apr-09, at 9:25 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Jason van Zyl
<jvan...@sonatype.com> wrote:
Don't spread FUD like that. You don't have any idea how Maven
releases work
so I'll take a moment and explain it to you.
Dude, chill! Mocking me isn't appreciated.
Not mocking, just clarifying that on the aggregate level what is
distributed via the standard Apache mechanism easily has its analog
source equivalent which can be built. That this is not a problem with
Maven and there's nothing anyone needs to address with the Maven
folks. It would not be possible in 2.x to guess the structure so an
assembly is your option right now. My point to the constituent pieces
is that I've not seen many uses cases where someone grabs the source
outside an IDE. All the IDEs support grabbing Maven source JARs. But
if deemed useful a simple plugin could be made to grab a source JAR
and materialize a project by making a structure that would build. It's
all in the source JAR. The structure of a source JAR if altered to
have an enclosing directory so that when it unpacked it looked like a
normal Maven project with a POM would render it useless to debuggers
is the point I was trying to make. That it's not necessary or useful
that every JAR expand to a buildable project provided primary source
distribution of the entire set of JARs is buildable.
I have been around the Maven block long enough (and you know that),
use it more than I would like to admit, and at another OSS project we
use the Release plugin as our *only* published output. The topic is on
legal-discuss, and perhaps it should continue there only...
You are confusing an aggregate release with the releases of the
individual components which is what Maven users need to consume. We
account
for both for the case where a user grabs the distribution to use,
We do the necessary and the nice to have. More working developers
actually
care about the nice to have.
Well, in my understanding of the ASF release spirit, we releases
Sources that are buildable by those who downloads them, with certain
legal requirements. The policy specifies indirectly that "whatever the
source download is" it produces (with instructions! and possibly a set
of system requirements) the binary, which may be provided as
convenience. Maven "by default" (yes, I am aware of assemblies)
doesn't do this and projects have to do a bit of work. That is what I
have said before and until we sort out on legal-discuss it will remain
my position on the topic. If you mean that I need Eclipse to "build"
any source releases of Maven-based projects, you are testing *my*
patience...
For the record, Yes, I am a bit wary of lavish (either too complex to
set up, requiring a GUI or too expensive for an average user) system
requirements for builds and/or usage of Apache projects.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus
http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E
----------------------------------------------------------
believe nothing, no matter where you read it,
or who has said it,
not even if i have said it,
unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense.
-- Buddha
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
