[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       xml-cocoon-dev
Subject:    Re: [RT] a simple release plan
From:       Ralph Goers <Ralph.Goers () dslextreme ! com>
Date:       2006-03-16 16:02:38
Message-ID: 44198C1E.8000003 () dslextreme ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Sylvain Wallez wrote:

>Daniel Fagerstrom wrote:
>
>BTW, I'm quite surprised that you want to go back to the messy Ant
>build from 2.1.x after having argued for building Cocoon with Maven
>for years. Have you lost your faith in Maven?
>  
>
>
>Same feeling here.
>
>I honestly admit being rather clueless both in OSGification and M10N
>(not enough time to invest to climb the learning curve). Now they
>obviously seem to be steps forward.
>
>Daniel says that "classical Cocoon" code doesn't depend on the
>infrastructure that's being built for real blocks and OSGi. And we seem
>pretty close to a full M10N. AFAIU, what's needed to finish it is mainly
>the equivalent of "build webapp"
>  
>
If that is the case then I'd agree as I would prefer to use a maven 
based build.  However:
1. I'm pretty sure all the blocks have not been mavenized. (I could be 
wrong, but I don't seem to be able to check out trunk as there is an 
external that uses http which won't go through my employer's firewall).
2. The maven build seems to have serious problems with some of the 
repositories (I believe primarily those at apache).

>If the above assumptions are true, splitting the code base and going
>back to the Ant build seems a huge step backwards, and would relegate
>OSGi and M10N to scratchpad status.
>
>That would be bad and would mean that this community is no longer able
>to innovate (provocative side note: are we really innovating? [1]).
>  
>
Innovation is great. However, if it is never released it is completely 
wasted.  We keep saying "release often" but then keep putting up 
roadblocks to make that impossible.

Ralph


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]