Aaron Bannert wrote, On 15/03/2003 22.37:
I don't claim to be a Java expert, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but why are jars being checked into CVS?
*sigh* this is a thing that is haunting java for quite some time now. The fact is that for compilation we need these libraries to be present, and to make it easy and consistent for all, the easiest and most effective solution uptodate has been to put them in CVS. Some projects go to extremes and also put in the build system (usually Ant).
Now there are systems that are growing fast that want to make this not necessary anymore, like Maven, Ruper (that has now been proposed to Ant), and the new [EMAIL PROTECTED] effort.
We'll soon see these jars in CVS go away, one way or the other :-)
Anyway, I'm curious: since I develop only java and I don't use other languages since the universtity (so take this question with the same grain of salt ;-) , what would have you thought could have been done instead of putting the jar in CVS?
On Friday, March 14, 2003, at 06:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
leif 2003/03/14 18:36:31
Added: lib/optional excalibur-lifecycle-1.0.jar Log: Updated to reflect the move of the lifecycle package from org.apache.excalibur.container.lifecycle to org.apache.avalon.lifecycle
Revision Changes Path
1.1 incubator-altrmi/lib/optional/excalibur-lifecycle-1.0.jar
<<Binary file>>
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
