Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As you know I'm working on a branch to make jSPF a multimodule product.
It took half an hour to prepare the modules and refactor the m2 descriptor
so to have 2 modules correctly managed by m2 but it already took a lot of
hours trying to make it build while offline.
The "stage module" hack is too much against what m2 expects and it keep
giving me issues whenever I try to build the project using a different m2
sequence (package, install, site, site:stage, validate).
Furthermore during the multimodule refactoring I had to remove the build.xml
because it was no more working and no more mantained for the new structure.
Now I think in the last 2 years I lost full days of my work trying to
accomodate offline build capability using m2 hacks and this is now starting
being frustrating.
You can also add that this hack introduced new licensing issues because NOT
A SINGLE pom published in maven repositories have a license header telling
us what we can do with it.
I'm happy with standard maven 2 and I don't care of offline builds so much
to make this a blocking issue and I don't think that the build system should
be given more importance than the produced artifacts.
Maven has a dependency:go-offline target specifically created for people
that want to go offline that take care of downloading and installing any
needed artifact in the local repository. This is what maven supports. I
would be happier if m2 bundled most standard plugins in its distribution and
if m2 allowed packaging of a project including an offline repository, but
this is not the case.
That said I'd like to remove build.xml from jSPF because no one is
mantaining it and I'd also like to remove offline build support from jSPF so
I can start caring of code and output artifacts instead of this stuff.
If people don't want to loose this then I'll close the branch
"multimodule-proposal" because the amount of work needed to mantain
ant+m2+m2-offline-support is too much in a multimodule product.
Unless someone comes with good ideas about managing this stuff or take the
responsibility to mantain that build system I'm going to start a VOTE to
remove ant support and m2 offline build support from jSPF.
i'd probably approach this a little differently. i'm not sure a VOTE
is really necessary or indeed a good idea.
if anyone wants to volunteer to create and maintain an ant build
including offline support for jSPF then that's cool by me and i'd have
no problem keeping it in. if no one is willing to maintain an ant
build including offline support (and i'm not for this product) then it
should be removed. in either case, it's about individuals caring
enough about a feature to step up and maintain it, not about some vote
by the general community.
so i'd just post a email such as this and then ask if anyone cares
enough about this feature to volunteer to maintain it.
but this is just my 2 cents...
I love this approach and I hope the rest of the PMC share your opinion!
I also agree that similar stuff shouldn't need a VOTE, but I proposed a
VOTE because the last time build.xml has not been updated we had a
number of complaint for people that was against a release not including
a working build.xml. So a the VOTE was intended to not hide this change
in a simple message, but instead make the community aware of the issue
in the spirit of the least surprise.
Let's see other's opinions!
Thank you,
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
