On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 12:42, Hannes Schmidt <han...@eyealike.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 6:21 AM, Gary Dusbabek <gdusba...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Cassandra is a community of volunteers. If someone is willing to take >> that half-hour and make Cassandra a mvn-friendly place and maintain it >> whilst moving forward, I say let it happen. Make it easy for us to >> package a release and push it to a repo. > > Ahh, the standard OS defense. ;-) I would deploy these jars to the public > Maven repo in a second, if I had the creds to do so. >
What we really need is someone to own this by being willing to support mvn users, respond to the jira tickets they generate, and send patches to the committers. >> >> Nobody has stepped up to do this though. We had a pom in trunk for >> quite a while. None of the developers used it, and therefore had no >> motivation to maintain it. > > None of them used it probably because it's hidden the contrib folder and > they already had a working Ant build. You can't seriously maintain two build > systems for a project. It doesn't make sense and that's why nobody adopted > the alternative build system. > It was in the root of trunk. >> >> > Sorry for the rant but taking shortcuts like this forces every Maven >> > user >> > down the stream to either do the work for you, e.g to deploy the >> > Cassandra >> > JAR and its dependencies to their local repository or take the very same >> > shortcut. >> >> I disagree that every project should do things the mvn way for the >> sake of making things easier for mvn users. > > No, but maybe every Apache project should? > Why? "To make things easier for mvn users" isn't enough of an argument to convince me. >> >> > If I want to use the client in my own Maven-built project, I >> > can't do so without manually deploying those two JARs along with the >> > Hector >> > JAR to my local repository. >> > >> >> I've been there, and I feel your pain. Pushing three jars to your >> local repo isn't a big deal though. If you're working on a team, >> deploying three more jars on your nexus repo isn't too hard either. >> > > Why don't you do it then? If you did it, you'd save many others from having > to do it. This isn't a you-vs-me kinda problem. It's a you-vs-many problem. > I don't wish to be the one to support it. Past experience has turned me off to mvn. I have a me-vs-mvn problem. >> >> Gary. >> >> > To add fuel to the fire, I don't think that there is a real need for >> > two coexisting build systems for Cassandra (I'm speaking of Ant/Ivy and >> > Maven) but even if you decide to go with Ant/Ivy, the resulting >> > artifacts >> > should all be accessible in a public Maven repository. This is pretty >> > much a >> > convention for any OS project of Cassandra's reach and maturity. >> > >> > -- Hannes >> > > > If I had more trust in the team's motivation to embrace a what I believe is > a truly better build tool than Ant/Ivy I would spend the time of migrating > Cassandra to Maven on an experimental branch and let you guys take a look. > But for this to work and be true evidence of Maven's superiority, the jars > in libs/ need to go away, hence this thread. I think that's an unfair judgment. Seriously--what's stopping you sending in a patch that updates the pom and leaves us with artifacts that can be pushed to a mvn repo? Wouldn't that satisfy your needs. Gary.
