Costin Manolache wrote:
Aren't we in 'comit then review' mode for the trunk ?
My understanding was that RTC is in effect for the stable releases, but not
the trunk,
and if there is no controversy ( and so far I think the only major issues
was 'don't touch file structure or break ant' ) - he can just submit.
if that was the case, the old trunk would have never been moved to sandbox,
that trunk was moved to sandbox based on code that never got a veto, -1.
I think the group has been careful lately, and always discussing changes
to a consensus even before committing to trunk to avoid conflicts like
that last one, which got quite ugly, even though it was just following CTR.
in terms of the maven stuff, I don't fully believe that it is non
intrusive yet. if it means adding poms everywhere in our java source
code directory structure, i would consider that intrusive.
Sorry, I haven't been paying attention to all the rule changes - if someone
could
post the short version, I'm quite interested - I plan to re-start
contributing few things and it
would be good to know the process.
consensus is always good to have, dont think we have fully recovered
from the last episode yet to the point where we can just CTR anything
and listen to me, I was the one that marked revolutionary :)
Filip
Costin
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
We already have eclipse files checked in AFAIK - that counts as the
second
build system.
We used to have makefiles too, also in parallel with ant (in 3.0
times).
The goal IMO is that people who like to type mvn can do it - without
any
guarantee that
the result will be identical with the official release or will be
maintained
long term, just like
isn't that the culprit, including a feature under the pretenses that
it
wont be maintained?
I meant 'maintained' in the apache-sense, of having 3 +1, etc. ( which
AFAIK
is required for
something to be 'officially' released ).
I'm sure Henri will maintain it - and at some point it may even have
the 3
+1s. As long as there is
no technical reason for a veto ( besides the 'don't break existing
build' -
which I think he addressed ),
I don't see how to stop him. I don't like Maven - but I think as
long
as it doesn't break anything
Henri is perfectly entitled to work on this.
absolutely correct, and it should follow the guidelines of voting just
like everything else
1+ means I support and intend to help
if you just support it, but are not planning on doing the work, then the
vote is +0 :)
Henri is more than welcome to make the proposal, no one is stopping him
from doing so.
Filip
Costin
Filip
the eclipse project can run but it's quite different from the
official
build.
If it's making easier for some people to build tomcat - and it
doesn't
affect people who use
ant in any way - what's the harm ?
Costin
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Remy Maucherat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 22:28 -0400, Yoav Shapira wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Remy Maucherat <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The current build scripts are fully tested and work well.
Adding
additional methods of building or replacing these scripts
altogether
would only provide ways to create and/or release broken
binaries.
Again, no one is saying anything about touching the current
build
scripts, build process, release process, or source structure.
All
those remain the same. The job of the release manager remains
the
same.
This is just an alternative for those people who want to use a
slightly easier / user-friendlier build system. We could do
worse
than lowering the barrier to entry for new contributors.
You mean you type "mvn" instead of "ant" ? I agree te keys are
closer
together on my keyboard, so it could indeed be easier. Personally,
I
did
have a first hand experience with Maven, and I think it's horrible
(you
have no clue what it is doing, error reporting is bad, and
basically,
you have to think and act the tool's way).
I disagree with having two separate build systems, there's no
guarantee
of equivalence.
Rémy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.6/1404 -
Release Date: 4/29/2008 6:27 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
