On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
wrote:
>
>
> On 8/14/12 4:08 PM, "dsheph...@godaddy.com" wrote:
>
>>On 2012-08-14 14:31, Hugo Trippaers wrote:
>>> Heya,
>>>
>>> In end both ant and waf will have to go. As per recent discussions we
>>> should leave the rpm/deb building to the dis
On 8/14/12 4:08 PM, "dsheph...@godaddy.com" wrote:
>On 2012-08-14 14:31, Hugo Trippaers wrote:
>> Heya,
>>
>> In end both ant and waf will have to go. As per recent discussions we
>> should leave the rpm/deb building to the distro's and focus in
>> building the jars. In my view also any will be
aers [mailto:htrippa...@schubergphilis.com]
>> Sent: 14 August 2012 22:29
>> To:
>> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our source tree/source releases.
>>
>> Only releasing jar files is certainly not the idea. Next to that
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Ewan Mellor wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
>> Sent: 15 August 2012 14:49
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our source tree/sourc
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Ewan Mellor wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
>> Sent: 15 August 2012 14:49
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our source tree/sourc
> -Original Message-
> From: Ewan Mellor [mailto:ewan.mel...@eu.citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 2:45 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our source tree/source
> releases.
>
> Looking at D
> -Original Message-
> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
> Sent: 15 August 2012 14:49
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our source tree/source releases.
>
> > We need to make a decision soon though. Is i
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:44:54PM +0100, Ewan Mellor wrote:
> We need to make a decision soon though. Is it OK if I set a deadline of
> EOD tomorrow for your branches to be ready, and then we can have a vote
> in the IRC meeting on Friday, 17:00 UTC?
Just a reminder - the IRC meeting is for di
> We need to make a decision soon though. Is it OK if I set a deadline of EOD
> tomorrow for your branches to be ready, and then we can have a vote in the
> IRC meeting on Friday, 17:00 UTC?
We can not make decisions in IRC.
If it's something we can't get consensus on we should vote on the
ma
n we can have a vote in the IRC
meeting on Friday, 17:00 UTC?
Ewan.
> -Original Message-
> From: Hugo Trippaers [mailto:htrippa...@schubergphilis.com]
> Sent: 14 August 2012 22:29
> To:
> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) i
Only releasing jar files is certainly not the idea. Next to that there is other
stuff that we need to do like building system vms and stuff.
My idea was more to see if maven/gradle can be the leading build tool, driving
other tools to do the other jobs.
I would still like to see what you have
>
> I have no clue what the technical release process is, like how you are really
> going to build Apache CS and produce a release distribution. I have a good
> idea of how Citrix used to do it, but for Apache CS if all we want to do is
> release jars, we can stop at gradle.
>
I don't think Apac
On 2012-08-14 14:31, Hugo Trippaers wrote:
Heya,
In end both ant and waf will have to go. As per recent discussions we
should leave the rpm/deb building to the distro's and focus in
building the jars. In my view also any will be used less, maybe even
the other way around. Use ant called from mav
Heya,
In end both ant and waf will have to go. As per recent discussions we should
leave the rpm/deb building to the distro's and focus in building the jars. In
my view also any will be used less, maybe even the other way around. Use ant
called from maven/gradle to do the few things they can't
On 2012-08-14 07:23, Chip Childers wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Hugo Trippaers
wrote:
Hey all,
Good to see action on this, we've been discussing this for a long
time and I think we need to get moving. At least on the "building
jars" front we seem to be narrowing down to two conten
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Hugo Trippaers
wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Good to see action on this, we've been discussing this for a long time and I
> think we need to get moving. At least on the "building jars" front we seem to
> be narrowing down to two contenders maven and grade. Darren is doin
Message-
From: Darren Shepherd [mailto:dar...@godaddy.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:14 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our source tree/source releases.
As I said before we don't *have* to mov
As I said before we don't *have* to move the files around. I already
started working on this (I have everything compiling fine) and have
taken the approach of not moving files. Moving the files around is just
nice because it's easier for other people who don't know CS but know
maven to work with
> -Original Message-
> From: Darren Shepherd [mailto:dar...@godaddy.com]
>
> [Snip]
>
> Let me know if you want me to head down this path. It would probably just
> take me a week or two to knock this out and then you guys can decide if this
> is a 4.0 or post-4.0 thing. One huge warning up
> -Original Message-
> From: Darren Shepherd [mailto:dar...@godaddy.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 8:19 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our source tree/source releases.
>
> Alex,
>
> By packaging
at is a crucial first step before bringing in more frameworks
like Spring and JPA.
Darren
Original Message ----
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our source tree/source
releases.
From: Alex Huang
Date: Sun, August 12, 2012 7:59 am
To: "cloudstack-dev@
> -Original Message-
> From: Darren Shepherd [mailto:dar...@godaddy.com]
> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2012 8:32 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our source tree/source releases.
>
> All,
>
> I'd lik
All,
I'd like to give my two cents about the CloudStack build system and this
current discussion. I tried to read through the whole thread and get
the full context but I apologize if I've missed anything.
The problems I've seen with the current build system is that it
1) Packages the binaries de
On 08/10/2012 09:52 PM, Ewan Mellor wrote:
So I think this is a terminology issue, perhaps.
My perspective (with packager hat on)
So assuming we pick $tool to replace ant. I tend to agree - $tool
should not build RPMs or .debs.
There are tools to build RPMs and .debs - (rpmbuild and dpkg) and t
On 08/10/2012 03:52 PM, Ewan Mellor wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Robert Schweikert [mailto:rjsch...@suse.com]
Sent: 10 August 2012 05:35
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Build systems [was RE: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our source
tree/source releases.]
On 08/09
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Schweikert [mailto:rjsch...@suse.com]
> Sent: 10 August 2012 05:35
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Build systems [was RE: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our source
> tree/source releases.]
>
> On 08/09/201
gure it out any
way :) )
Cheers,
Hugo
-Original Message-
From: Ewan Mellor [mailto:ewan.mel...@eu.citrix.com]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 12:59 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our source tree/source releases.
> -Original Messag
On 08/09/2012 09:06 PM, David Nalley wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Ewan Mellor wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Robert Schweikert [mailto:rjsch...@suse.com]
[Snip]
* We want to be able to package CloudStack in RPMs and .debs that
correctly depend on packages available on the
ge-
From: Ewan Mellor [mailto:ewan.mel...@eu.citrix.com]
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 12:59 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our source tree/source releases.
> -Original Message-
> From: Ewan Mellor [mailto:ewan.mel...@eu.citrix.com]
> Se
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Ewan Mellor wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Robert Schweikert [mailto:rjsch...@suse.com]
>>
>> [Snip]
>>
>> > * We want to be able to package CloudStack in RPMs and .debs that
>> correctly depend on packages available on the target platform.
>>
>> This
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Schweikert [mailto:rjsch...@suse.com]
>
> [Snip]
>
> > * We want to be able to package CloudStack in RPMs and .debs that
> correctly depend on packages available on the target platform.
>
> This is IMHO not a "job" of the project. This is up to the packa
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Ewan Mellor wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
>>
>> [Snip]
>>
>> The thread started because the current system isn't really a system,
>> it's just a folder full of binary jars which we were advised against
>> (and saw
> -Original Message-
> From: Ewan Mellor [mailto:ewan.mel...@eu.citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:57 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our source tree/source
> releases.
>
> > -Original M
> -Original Message-
> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
>
> [Snip]
>
> The thread started because the current system isn't really a system,
> it's just a folder full of binary jars which we were advised against
> (and saw another incubator project taken to task by the IPMC). As I
>
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Ewan Mellor wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 6:17 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our
> -Original Message-
> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 6:17 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our source tree/source
> releases.
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:07
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:46 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Just a quick update on this. I created the deps-ctrl branch off of
> master now that I actually have something to show.
>
> If you take a look under deps you'll see it looks pretty bare. I've
> removed a number of the jars.
>
> T
jects from ant to maven.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hugo
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:17 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our source tree/source relea
jects from ant to maven.
Cheers,
Hugo
-Original Message-
From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:17 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our source tree/source releases.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:07 PM,
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> On 09/08/2012, at 3:01 AM, David Nalley wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>> If this is a direction CloudStack decides it'd like to go, I'm more than
>>> happy to help :)
>>>
>>> - Brett
>>
>> How much help
On 09/08/2012, at 3:01 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>> If this is a direction CloudStack decides it'd like to go, I'm more than
>> happy to help :)
>>
>> - Brett
>
> How much help are you willing to provide? :)
> I am not sure we have a lot o
On 08/08/2012 06:30 PM, Ewan Mellor wrote:
We need to push this discussion on build systems to a conclusion. Let me
summarize so far.
* We need to be able to build CloudStack in various configurations (support for
the range of hypervisors turned on or off, etc).
Yes
* We would like the b
> -Original Message-
> From: Alex Huang [mailto:alex.hu...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 4:19 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Build systems [was RE: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our
> source tree/source releases.]
>
&g
> -Original Message-
> From: Ewan Mellor [mailto:ewan.mel...@eu.citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 3:31 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Build systems [was RE: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our source
> tree/source releases.]
>
&
We need to push this discussion on build systems to a conclusion. Let me
summarize so far.
* We need to be able to build CloudStack in various configurations (support for
the range of hypervisors turned on or off, etc).
* We would like the build tool to be able to get the necessary dependencie
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> If this is a direction CloudStack decides it'd like to go, I'm more than
> happy to help :)
>
> - Brett
How much help are you willing to provide? :)
I am not sure we have a lot of maven expertise around, but maybe this
provides an even clean
If this is a direction CloudStack decides it'd like to go, I'm more than happy
to help :)
- Brett
On 08/08/2012, at 4:32 AM, Adrian Cole wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> Maven is much easier to support than the current process. Gradle (if ever)
> could be done later. Also, there are folks like
+1 (non-binding)
Maven is much easier to support than the current process. Gradle (if ever)
could be done later. Also, there are folks like me that want to use
components of cloudstack as libraries w dependencies and the current
process is not catered towards that. Maven would.
-A
On Aug 7, 20
I've heard good things about Gradle, and "because everyone else is doing it" is
rarely a good justification for choosing technologies, but it seems Maven is
the de facto standard for most Apache (and other open source) projects. If
integrating Cloudstack in other environments or extending Clou
No experience except it is the only tool suggested for the jclouds project
to switch to (from maven). Looking at asgard, gradle looks clean.
Perhaps we can experiment by taking one piece (perhaps the ec2 bridge), and
converting it?
-A
On Aug 3, 2012 4:57 PM, "Chiradeep Vittal"
wrote:
> Gradle
> -Original Message-
> From: Frank Zhang [mailto:frank.zh...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 5:35 PM
> To: CloudStack DeveloperList
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Binaries (jars) in our source tree/source
> releases.
>
> >
> > Gradle seems to be
>
> Gradle seems to be another
> http://www.gradle.org/
>
>
> Since it is allows scripting (as opposed to configuration xml), it could
> potentially fulfill the waf role as well.
> Anybody have any experience with Gradle?
It seems Gradle received great reputation among famous java communities,
Gradle seems to be another
http://www.gradle.org/
Since it is allows scripting (as opposed to configuration xml), it could
potentially fulfill the waf role as well.
Anybody have any experience with Gradle?
On 7/24/12 2:19 PM, "Alex Huang" wrote:
>> Just out of curiosity, have tools like Ivy an
On 07/31/2012 11:46 PM, David Nalley wrote:
Hi folks,
Just a quick update on this. I created the deps-ctrl branch off of
master now that I actually have something to show.
If you take a look under deps you'll see it looks pretty bare. I've
removed a number of the jars.
There's also a few new a
Hi folks,
Just a quick update on this. I created the deps-ctrl branch off of
master now that I actually have something to show.
If you take a look under deps you'll see it looks pretty bare. I've
removed a number of the jars.
There's also a few new ant targets you can use:
resolveBuildDeps: Thi
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Wido den Hollander wrote:
>
>
> On 07/27/2012 06:51 PM, David Nalley wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:13 PM, David Nalley wrote:
>>>
>>> In one of the OSCON discussions, I noted the recent polite discussion
>>> re binary jars in source releases on general@in
On 07/27/2012 06:51 PM, David Nalley wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:13 PM, David Nalley wrote:
In one of the OSCON discussions, I noted the recent polite discussion
re binary jars in source releases on general@incubator. While this is
apparently tolerated (if you don't mind wearing Nomex),
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:13 PM, David Nalley wrote:
> In one of the OSCON discussions, I noted the recent polite discussion
> re binary jars in source releases on general@incubator. While this is
> apparently tolerated (if you don't mind wearing Nomex), it's
> considered a Bad Thing (TM) generall
On 25/07/2012, at 7:19 AM, Alex Huang wrote:
>> Just out of curiosity, have tools like Ivy and maven been ever considered for
>> dependency management?
>
> We are looking at these two tools. Our first thoughts is devs should be able
> to start projects that are tied to other parts of their cod
> Just out of curiosity, have tools like Ivy and maven been ever considered for
> dependency management?
We are looking at these two tools. Our first thoughts is devs should be able
to start projects that are tied to other parts of their code so we want this to
be as flexible as possible. Mave
On Jul 21, 2012, at 4:13 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> In one of the OSCON discussions, I noted the recent polite discussion
> re binary jars in source releases on general@incubator. While this is
> apparently tolerated (if you don't mind wearing Nomex), it's
> considered a Bad Thing (TM) generally s
On 20-07-12 23:21, Alex Huang wrote:
- Lets get rid of the jars
- spell out everything needed in the doc
- make sure that all these dependencies can be built by distros
+1
+1. In fact, it should spelled out specifically in the build.xml file for each
project. Today the build.xml file
>
> - Lets get rid of the jars
> - spell out everything needed in the doc
> - make sure that all these dependencies can be built by distros
>
+1. In fact, it should spelled out specifically in the build.xml file for each
project. Today the build.xml files just take everything in the deps dire
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Robert Schweikert wrote:
> On 07/20/2012 03:13 PM, David Nalley wrote:
>>
>> In one of the OSCON discussions, I noted the recent polite discussion
>> re binary jars in source releases on general@incubator. While this is
>> apparently tolerated (if you don't mind we
On 07/20/2012 03:13 PM, David Nalley wrote:
In one of the OSCON discussions, I noted the recent polite discussion
re binary jars in source releases on general@incubator. While this is
apparently tolerated (if you don't mind wearing Nomex), it's
considered a Bad Thing (TM) generally speaking. Folk
65 matches
Mail list logo
