+1 on removing the pom files. But as Martin pointed out, we need to create poms (auto generated or hand written) for client and common modules. This will help other projects who are trying to integrate Qpid into their projects. As for the perftest scripts, I thought Senka had something going with the help of Rafi. Not sure what happened to that effort. Rafi is that stuff in a usable state or more work needs to be done on that front?
Regards, Rajith. On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:10 AM, Aidan Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's a shell script sitting on my blog i've been meaning to > integrate that should be a good starting point for this. It's on the > M3 announcement i think. The other thing that the ant files don't do > that they need too is generate the perf test scripts. Other than that, > i am +1^lots for getting rid of them. > > On 12/2/08, Martin Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2008/12/2 Rafael Schloming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Martin Ritchie wrote: > >>> > >>> 2008/12/2 Rafael Schloming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>>> > >>>> It's been noted in several different threads now that the maven poms > >>>> currently checked into SVN are out of date, don't work, and are > >>>> confusing > >>>> people new to the project. > >>>> > >>>> So far the only reason given for retaining them is the convenience of > >>>> being > >>>> able to use them to generate IDEA/Eclipse project files. IMHO it would > >>>> be > >>>> preferable to simply check in a standard set of project files, and > keep > >>>> any > >>>> mechanism used to build them outside of SVN. > >>>> > >>>> I'd like to propose removing the pom files before the next RC. Please > >>>> let > >>>> me > >>>> know if you have any objections. > >>>> > >>>> --Rafael > >>> > >>> Can we also remember to check in pom files for the client and common > >>> modules so we can still publish our client library to a maven repo. > >>> Something we haven't done yet but should be on our list of goals. > >>> > >>> Was it not originally on our list of tasks for the new ant build > system? > >> > >> I'm confused. Is this an objection to removing the maven buildfiles? > >> > >> --Rafael > > > > Its not an objection if we have the ability to create poms for the > > client/common modules from ant. > > > > We probably don't even need to auto generate them as a first cut > > though that of course would be way better so we don't have lot of > > testing overhead at release time when we find the files have rotted. > > > > Martin > > > > -- > > Martin Ritchie > > > > -- > Sent from Google Mail for mobile | mobile.google.com > > Apache Qpid - World Domination through Advanced Message Queueing > http://cwiki.apache.org/qpid > "Have we anything resembling a plan?" "Mm-hm. Ride till we find > them... and kill them all." - The 13th Warrior > -- Regards, Rajith Attapattu Red Hat http://rajith.2rlabs.com/
