Ok, it seems to works. Engine and tools do compile.
Some questions remaining:
Webapps usually gather all their dependencies in WEB-INF/lib. Is there
any easy way to ask maven to copy somewhere all needed jars, or at least
give their location in maven cache? Otherwise, this should also be
2010/9/9 Nathan Bubna nbu...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Antonio Petrelli
antonio.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/9/8 Nathan Bubna nbu...@gmail.com:
2) Merge sandboxed Engine project(s) into the 2.x branch of Engine
3) Copy trunks of current projects into maintenance branches
2010/9/10 Claude Brisson cla...@renegat.net:
Webapps usually gather all their dependencies in WEB-INF/lib. Is there any
easy way to ask maven to copy somewhere all needed jars, or at least give
their location in maven cache? Otherwise, this should also be documented.
Yep, simple use the
2010/9/10 Antonio Petrelli antonio.petre...@gmail.com:
In the tools subprojects, we had very handy start.showcase.webapp and
stop.showcase.webapp that would start/stop the showcase webapp using Jetty
on the configured port. Is there any way to do it using maven?
mvn cargo:start
to start the
By the way, in which config file can one change the version number of a
dependancy?
pom.xml, obviously. It's everything there.
Ok, but what if I want to replace one dependancy with a custom build of
my own? Let's say, for instance: I modify something in the engine and
before
2010/9/10 Claude Brisson cla...@renegat.net:
By the way, in which config file can one change the version number of a
dependancy?
pom.xml, obviously. It's everything there.
Ok, but what if I want to replace one dependancy with a custom build of my
own? Let's say, for instance: I modify
Thanks. I guess we shouldn't wait too long for the migration, otherwise
the merge will quickly become a nightmare...
Claude
On 10/09/2010 13:32, Antonio Petrelli wrote:
2010/9/10 Claude Brissoncla...@renegat.net:
By the way, in which config file can one change the version number
2010/9/10 Claude Brisson cla...@renegat.net:
Thanks. I guess we shouldn't wait too long for the migration, otherwise the
merge will quickly become a nightmare...
I agree but I wish that the merge process is clear for everyone (me
included :-D ).
Antonio
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Antonio Petrelli
antonio.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/9/9 Nathan Bubna nbu...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Antonio Petrelli
antonio.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/9/8 Nathan Bubna nbu...@gmail.com:
2) Merge sandboxed Engine project(s) into the
2010/9/8 Nathan Bubna nbu...@gmail.com:
2) Merge sandboxed Engine project(s) into the 2.x branch of Engine
3) Copy trunks of current projects into maintenance branches (e.g.
2.0.x branch for Tools)
4) Merge other sandboxed projects into their respective project trunks
and i only say merge so
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Antonio Petrelli
antonio.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/9/8 Nathan Bubna nbu...@gmail.com:
2) Merge sandboxed Engine project(s) into the 2.x branch of Engine
3) Copy trunks of current projects into maintenance branches (e.g.
2.0.x branch for Tools)
4) Merge
I checked out the sandbox and changed directory to
sandbox/maven-reorg/engine/trunk. Once there, I look into the
Readme.txt. Bad luck, it still does reference ant.
Ok. I recall something about invoking maven with an mvn command...
I first try a mvn --help ; nothing in the given options tells
ant -p is needed because targets are always custom. Maven goals are
standardized, so users are expected to know the basics :
http://maven.apache.org/guides/getting-started/maven-in-five-minutes.html
mvn install is usually where i begin.
maven has dependency management at the core. getting
Well, since no one else seems to have an opinion, we can either a)
assume they have no objections and procede or b) call for a vote to
get attention and decide by lazy consensus (at least one +1 and no -1)
personally, i'm ok with either next step. :)
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Nathan Bubna
2010/9/8 Nathan Bubna nbu...@gmail.com:
Well, since no one else seems to have an opinion, we can either a)
assume they have no objections and procede or b) call for a vote to
get attention and decide by lazy consensus (at least one +1 and no -1)
personally, i'm ok with either next step. :)
I
No, we're not definitely not mavenizing the Engine trunk, only the 2.x
branch (which can probably lose the exp moniker by now). Also, we
should not mavenize the Tools trunk, but create a 2.1.x branch for
that. The trunk is probably fine for the rest the projects.
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:18
2010/9/8 Nathan Bubna nbu...@gmail.com:
No, we're not definitely not mavenizing the Engine trunk, only the 2.x
branch (which can probably lose the exp moniker by now). Also, we
should not mavenize the Tools trunk, but create a 2.1.x branch for
that. The trunk is probably fine for the rest
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Antonio Petrelli
antonio.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/9/8 Nathan Bubna nbu...@gmail.com:
No, we're not definitely not mavenizing the Engine trunk, only the 2.x
branch (which can probably lose the exp moniker by now). Also, we
should not mavenize the Tools
2010/9/8 Nathan Bubna nbu...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Antonio Petrelli
antonio.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/9/8 Nathan Bubna nbu...@gmail.com:
No, we're not definitely not mavenizing the Engine trunk, only the 2.x
branch (which can probably lose the exp moniker by now).
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Antonio Petrelli
antonio.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/9/8 Nathan Bubna nbu...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Antonio Petrelli
antonio.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/9/8 Nathan Bubna nbu...@gmail.com:
No, we're not definitely not mavenizing the
2010/8/31 Nathan Bubna nbu...@gmail.com:
But at this point, you'll have my support in a
vote for moving this into the Engine 2.0, Tools 2.1, etc, with one
condition: documentation. With the proliferation of artifacts and
their various reasons and dependencies, we need some very
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Antonio Petrelli
antonio.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/8/31 Nathan Bubna nbu...@gmail.com:
But at this point, you'll have my support in a
vote for moving this into the Engine 2.0, Tools 2.1, etc, with one
condition: documentation. With the proliferation of
2010/8/31 Nathan Bubna nbu...@gmail.com:
And finally, i
don't know if maven can do this, but one of my current favorite parts
of the Velocity and VelocityTools build files is that they spit out
customized directions for building and publishing releases right along
with the target output,
Hi all
this is just to let you know that I've finished reorganizing all
Velocity projects. I left only the DocBook framework since it is not a
project, but a directory layout useful to build your documents based
on DocBook.
For produced builds see:
http://people.apache.org/builds/velocity/
A
24 matches
Mail list logo
