On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Filip Hanik - Dev Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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'm confused - there is a tomcat6/trunk repo - isn't this the trunk ? I know there are different things in sandbox - and that's all fine for things that are bigger or controversial changes - but not sure how a project can work without a trunk ( unless tomcat is dead and moved to maintainance only - but I don't remember that announcement ) > 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. Well, it is common sense to discuss changes that affect core functionality before committing, and I think we ( and any other reasonably active project ) had plenty of conflicts and debates. I remember a vote to do RTC for stable - and I think it passed, but I don't remember any "remove the trunk" or "RTC on the trunk". If it happened - maybe it's time to have another discussion and reopen the trunk for CTR and active development. While most of tomcat works 'well enough', I think there is enough interest in making tomcat more modular - and I'm planning to propose some sandbox->trunk moves as well. > > 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. I would agree - I think what Henri is doing is create a build/maven directory with poms under it. > > 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 Sure - but that doesn't mean every small change needs to follow a formal process and vote. It's still an open source project that's supposed to be fun :-). Costin > > > 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] > >
