Le Lundi, 29 sep 2003, à 18:14 Europe/Zurich, Stefano Mazzocchi a écrit
:
...let's work incrementally. The less changes, the less likely new
bugs are introduced, the less time we spend time arguing instead of
moving along.
Let's just move the exising build system along on cocoon-2.2 and start
Stefano Mazzocchi dijo:
> Let's just move the existing build system along on cocoon-2.2 and start
> from there incrementally, all right?
Amen, brother :-D
Best Regards,
Antonio Gallardo
On Monday, Sep 29, 2003, at 14:29 Europe/Rome, Geoff Howard wrote:
Jeff Turner wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 12:50:57PM +0200, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
...
At the same time, the Maven vs. Centipede debate is a human one,
technology is something that can easily be changed, personal
feelings aren
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
...
I think it is better to save our efforts by using any of the projects
related to this tasks. The idea, is to have a better project management
with less effort than we currently have with Ant. Is that right?
Correct.
I strongly think that mov
Giacomo Pati wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
On Thursday, Sep 25, 2003, at 10:47 Europe/Rome, Giacomo Pati wrote:
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Berin Loritsch wrote:
discussion on build infrastructure
We tried to have a unified build system with ANT, and all excalibur
projects
re
Geoff Howard wrote:
- I think we need to keep the familiarity of ant available for the
_blocks_ build process, as that's the one most users may get involved
in. How does Maven or Centipede's market share compare to Ant? (of
course no one has numbers on this, but would anyone argue that it's eve
Jeff Turner wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 12:50:57PM +0200, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
...
At the same time, the Maven vs. Centipede debate is a human one,
technology is something that can easily be changed, personal feelings
aren't. There is friction between the people behind Maven and the
peopl
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 12:50:57PM +0200, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
...
> At the same time, the Maven vs. Centipede debate is a human one,
> technology is something that can easily be changed, personal feelings
> aren't. There is friction between the people behind Maven and the
> people behind Ce
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Looking at this with a different mindset, I would like to point out
> that this "maven vs. centipede" 'querrelle' is harming us more than it
> is helping us.
Yes, it was my fault to be polite to Ken Nicola also mentioning
Centipede as an alternati
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> ...
> > I think it is better to save our efforts by using any of the projects
> > related to this tasks. The idea, is to have a better project management
> > with less effort than we currently have with Ant. Is that right?
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
...
There is friction between the people behind Maven and the people
behind Centipede.
This is also the reason, I believe, while Maven integration with Forrest
is so weak: the maven community associates, transivitely, forrest with
Centipede. So it stays away from it.
Th
Morrison, John wrote:
...
BTW, wasn't Centipede going to be moved under the Apache umbrella?
We had contacted the Ant team, we have proposed Ruper to Apache, but I
didn't see any real positive outcome of either.
ATM we're concentrating on stuff to finish for the 1.0 release, then
we'll see.
--
On Monday, Sep 29, 2003, at 10:10 Europe/Rome, Morrison, John wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
...
I think it is better to save our efforts by using any of the projects
related to this tasks. The idea, is to have a better project
management with less effort than we currentl
Le Lundi, 29 sep 2003, à 10:00 Europe/Zurich, Nicola Ken Barozzi a
écrit :
...What do we want from Maven?
1 - jar downloads: use Ruper or Ant
Seems like the only thing that's really missing from the current build
system.
2 - generic targets? Heck, we already have them.
3 - what else? Don't te
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> ...
>> I think it is better to save our efforts by using any of the projects
>> related to this tasks. The idea, is to have a better project
>> management with less effort than we currently have with Ant. Is that
>> right?
>
> Correct.
>
> I
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
...
I think it is better to save our efforts by using any of the projects
related to this tasks. The idea, is to have a better project management
with less effort than we currently have with Ant. Is that right?
Correct.
I strongly think that moving to Maven now will be a ma
Giacomo Pati wrote:
>
> But first we need to come to a consensus about which build
> infrastructure we would support to use:
>
> 1) Ant
> in this case we can use the current build system and tune it to the
> needs we have for the 2.2 and maybe add some ruper task to get rid
> of ja
Having been though the process of setting up Maven for several projects
- and during the process experienced the evolution form Maven 0.7 to the
current 0.10, I can confirm that Maven in its current form is usable and
functional.
There are bugs in the Maven 10 release, many of which have been r
Giacomo Pati wrote:
3) Maven
ATM this is my preferred build infrastructure and I could help
building the 2.2 repo based on it
Heard interesting things it (besides the opinion that there is nearly no
^^^^
documentation ;-) ), so +1 from here to
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Joerg Heinicke wrote:
> Giacomo Pati wrote:
>
> > Well, as my time permits it and Berin could give a hand as well, why
> > not.
> >
> > But first we need to come to a consensus about which build
> > infrastructure we would support to use:
> >
> > 1) Ant
> > in this case w
Giacomo Pati dijo:
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>> Then Ant can be present in the 3 options presented. I share with you
>> the need to move to a better project management. In that case I think
>> the question is related to Centiped vs. Maven.
>
> Well, all three infrastructure men
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
> Giacomo Pati dijo:
> > But first we need to come to a consensus about which build
> > infrastructure we would support to use:
> >
> > 1) Ant
> > in this case we can use the current build system and tune it to the
> > needs we have for the 2.2 and
Giacomo Pati wrote:
Well, as my time permits it and Berin could give a hand as well, why
not.
But first we need to come to a consensus about which build
infrastructure we would support to use:
1) Ant
in this case we can use the current build system and tune it to the
needs we have for th
Giacomo Pati dijo:
> But first we need to come to a consensus about which build
> infrastructure we would support to use:
>
> 1) Ant
> in this case we can use the current build system and tune it to the
> needs we have for the 2.2 and maybe add some ruper task to get rid
> of jars in our repos
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> On Thursday, Sep 25, 2003, at 10:47 Europe/Rome, Giacomo Pati wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Berin Loritsch wrote:
discussion on build infrastructure
> >>
> >> We tried to have a unified build system with ANT, and all excalibur
> >> projects
> >>
25 matches
Mail list logo
