Vincent Massol wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Geir Magnusson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 6:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] build structure jakarta-commons
>
> [snip]
> > But I would be happy with this over nothing, although it in itself
> > sounds like a maintenance nightmare, and as I do this voluntarily, like
> > most of you, the less time spent maintaining, and more time spent
> > developing, the happier I am. I *am* happy to spend time making it easy
> > for first-time and novice users (to which this thread attests...), but I
> > am happier if I can make it automatic.
> >
>
> It is automatic ! GUMP runs the all target which depends on the
> 'dependencies' target, which packages the jars.
Right, and you get whatever crap happens to be lying around in the CVS
at that time, if you go against the CVS head. There are no guarantees
that it will even compile, much less work the way it did the day
before. And I think that is ok - because during development, things can
be and should be allowed to be transitional - so the CVS head can
contain elements that won't survive another day of development.
I agree with how and what Gump does for cross-functional dependency
checking. It's a wonderful thing.
But if you are not going against the CVS head of a dependency for the
above reasons, you are going against a specific version. If you are
going against the specific version, then the whole "don't bundle a jar"
argument falls apart as the major plank is that you don't want your
dependencies to be brittle and static.
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
