Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
64 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

Shai Erera
Hey

Wearing on my rebel hat today, I'd like to propose we drop maven support from our release process / build system. I've always read about the maven artifacts never being produced right, and never working (or maybe never is a too harsh word).

I personally don't understand why we struggle to support Maven. I'm perfectly fine if we say that "Lucene/Solr uses SVN, Ant and release a bunch of .jar files you can embed in your project". Who says we need to support Maven? And if so, why only Maven (I'm kidding !)?

Are you with me? :)

Shai
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

Robert Muir
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Shai Erera <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hey
>
> Wearing on my rebel hat today, I'd like to propose we drop maven support
> from our release process / build system. I've always read about the maven
> artifacts never being produced right, and never working (or maybe never is a
> too harsh word).
>
> I personally don't understand why we struggle to support Maven. I'm
> perfectly fine if we say that "Lucene/Solr uses SVN, Ant and release a bunch
> of .jar files you can embed in your project". Who says we need to support
> Maven? And if so, why only Maven (I'm kidding !)?
>
> Are you with me? :)
>

I am, the last time i suggested releasing 3.1, a 99-email thread about
maven ensued that basically left me frustrated and not wanting to work
towards a release.

We still don't have a "test-maven" target that does even trivial
verification of these magical artifacts that most of us don't
understand... like any other functionality we have, we should have
tests so that the release manager can verify things are working before
the release.  If we have a "contrib" thats unmaintained with no tests,
would we let it block a release?

I don't think we should let the maven problems hold lucene releases hostage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

steve_rowe
In reply to this post by Shai Erera
-1 from me on dropping Maven artifacts.

I find it curious that on the verge of fixing the broken Maven artifacts situation (LUCENE-2657), there is a big push for a divorce.

Robert, I agree we should have a way to test the "magic" artifacts.  I'm working on it.  Your other objection is the work involved - you don't want to do it.  I will do the work.

We should not drop Maven support when there are committers willing to support it.  I obviously count myself in that camp.

Steve

Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Shai Erera <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hey
>
> Wearing on my rebel hat today, I'd like to propose we drop maven support
> from our release process / build system. I've always read about the maven
> artifacts never being produced right, and never working (or maybe never is a
> too harsh word).
>
> I personally don't understand why we struggle to support Maven. I'm
> perfectly fine if we say that "Lucene/Solr uses SVN, Ant and release a bunch
> of .jar files you can embed in your project". Who says we need to support
> Maven? And if so, why only Maven (I'm kidding !)?
>
> Are you with me? :)
>

I am, the last time i suggested releasing 3.1, a 99-email thread about
maven ensued that basically left me frustrated and not wanting to work
towards a release.

We still don't have a "test-maven" target that does even trivial
verification of these magical artifacts that most of us don't
understand... like any other functionality we have, we should have
tests so that the release manager can verify things are working before
the release.  If we have a "contrib" thats unmaintained with no tests,
would we let it block a release?

I don't think we should let the maven problems hold lucene releases hostage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

Shai Erera
Well ... you raise interesting points. So if a committer would be willing to support GIT, RTC, and whatever (just making up scenarios), would we allow all of those to exist within Lucene?

I think the reasonable solution is to have a modules/maven package, with build.xml that generates whatever needs to be generated. Whoever cares about maven should run the proper Ant targets, just like whoever cares about Eclipse/IDEA can now run "ant eclipse/idea". We'd have an "ant maven". If that's what you intend doing in 2657 then fine.

The release manager need not be concerned w/ Maven (or whatever) artifacts, they are not officially published anywhere, and everyone's happy. As long as all tests pass, the release is good to go.

Is that better?

Shai

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Steven A Rowe <[hidden email]> wrote:
-1 from me on dropping Maven artifacts.

I find it curious that on the verge of fixing the broken Maven artifacts situation (LUCENE-2657), there is a big push for a divorce.

Robert, I agree we should have a way to test the "magic" artifacts.  I'm working on it.  Your other objection is the work involved - you don't want to do it.  I will do the work.

We should not drop Maven support when there are committers willing to support it.  I obviously count myself in that camp.

Steve

Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Shai Erera <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hey
>
> Wearing on my rebel hat today, I'd like to propose we drop maven support
> from our release process / build system. I've always read about the maven
> artifacts never being produced right, and never working (or maybe never is a
> too harsh word).
>
> I personally don't understand why we struggle to support Maven. I'm
> perfectly fine if we say that "Lucene/Solr uses SVN, Ant and release a bunch
> of .jar files you can embed in your project". Who says we need to support
> Maven? And if so, why only Maven (I'm kidding !)?
>
> Are you with me? :)
>

I am, the last time i suggested releasing 3.1, a 99-email thread about
maven ensued that basically left me frustrated and not wanting to work
towards a release.

We still don't have a "test-maven" target that does even trivial
verification of these magical artifacts that most of us don't
understand... like any other functionality we have, we should have
tests so that the release manager can verify things are working before
the release.  If we have a "contrib" thats unmaintained with no tests,
would we let it block a release?

I don't think we should let the maven problems hold lucene releases hostage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

Earwin Burrfoot
Maven is a defacto package/dependency manager for Java. Like it or not.
All "better" tools out there, like Ant+Ivy, or SBT - support Maven repositories.
Lots of people rely on Maven or "better" tools for their builds and as
soon as you're on declarative dependency management train, it's a
bother to "just take a bunch of jars and stuff 'em into your project".
Development tools (Eclipse/IDEA) support auto-downloading and
attaching sources/javadocs for declared dependencies, and people use
this.

> Well ... you raise interesting points. So if a committer would be willing to
> support GIT, RTC, and whatever (just making up scenarios), would we allow
> all of those to exist within Lucene?
So, while having a wild contributor supporting .. dunno .. MacPorts
package for Lucene is a bit crazy, and in the end - nobody will ever
notice,
supporting Maven broadens your audience and makes it happy (even those
guys, who are not into Maven itself).

> I think the reasonable solution is to have a modules/maven package, with
> build.xml that generates whatever needs to be generated. Whoever cares about
> maven should run the proper Ant targets, just like whoever cares about
> Eclipse/IDEA can now run "ant eclipse/idea". We'd have an "ant maven". If
> that's what you intend doing in 2657 then fine.
That should be some person amongst the committers, be it a part of
default release process or not.
I believe publishing Maven artefact is somewhat nontrivial for a
person not related to the project in question.

> The release manager need not be concerned w/ Maven (or whatever) artifacts,
> they are not officially published anywhere, and everyone's happy. As long as
> all tests pass, the release is good to go.
>
> Is that better?
>
> Shai
>
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Steven A Rowe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> -1 from me on dropping Maven artifacts.
>>
>> I find it curious that on the verge of fixing the broken Maven artifacts
>> situation (LUCENE-2657), there is a big push for a divorce.
>>
>> Robert, I agree we should have a way to test the "magic" artifacts.  I'm
>> working on it.  Your other objection is the work involved - you don't want
>> to do it.  I will do the work.
>>
>> We should not drop Maven support when there are committers willing to
>> support it.  I obviously count myself in that camp.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Shai Erera <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Hey
>> >
>> > Wearing on my rebel hat today, I'd like to propose we drop maven support
>> > from our release process / build system. I've always read about the
>> > maven
>> > artifacts never being produced right, and never working (or maybe never
>> > is a
>> > too harsh word).
>> >
>> > I personally don't understand why we struggle to support Maven. I'm
>> > perfectly fine if we say that "Lucene/Solr uses SVN, Ant and release a
>> > bunch
>> > of .jar files you can embed in your project". Who says we need to
>> > support
>> > Maven? And if so, why only Maven (I'm kidding !)?
>> >
>> > Are you with me? :)
>> >
>>
>> I am, the last time i suggested releasing 3.1, a 99-email thread about
>> maven ensued that basically left me frustrated and not wanting to work
>> towards a release.
>>
>> We still don't have a "test-maven" target that does even trivial
>> verification of these magical artifacts that most of us don't
>> understand... like any other functionality we have, we should have
>> tests so that the release manager can verify things are working before
>> the release.  If we have a "contrib" thats unmaintained with no tests,
>> would we let it block a release?
>>
>> I don't think we should let the maven problems hold lucene releases
>> hostage.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
>



--
Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко ([hidden email])
Phone: +7 (495) 683-567-4
ICQ: 104465785

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

Robert Muir
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Earwin Burrfoot <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Lots of people rely on Maven or "better" tools for their builds and as
> soon as you're on declarative dependency management train, it's a
> bother to "just take a bunch of jars and stuff 'em into your project".

Sure, and i bet its even more of a bother for them to 'svn checkout',
because again this whole maven crap seems be on the path to prevent us
from making a release.

At this point, I don't think maven artifacts or even a jar file is
required. All that is needed is a source .tar.gz with three +1 PMC
votes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

Stevo Slavić
Hello Lucene/Solr developers,

Speaking from Lucene/Solr user - potential contributor perspective, my
votes are:

-1 for dropping maven artifacts (even +1 for extending number of maven
artifacts https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-1218 )

+1 for using maven as build tool

Regards,
Stevo.

On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Earwin Burrfoot <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Lots of people rely on Maven or "better" tools for their builds and as
>> soon as you're on declarative dependency management train, it's a
>> bother to "just take a bunch of jars and stuff 'em into your project".
>
> Sure, and i bet its even more of a bother for them to 'svn checkout',
> because again this whole maven crap seems be on the path to prevent us
> from making a release.
>
> At this point, I don't think maven artifacts or even a jar file is
> required. All that is needed is a source .tar.gz with three +1 PMC
> votes.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

Ryan McKinley
In reply to this post by Robert Muir
uggg -- sorry to see this thread flare up again -- especially since
Steve is actively making great progress on better maven support --
including integration tests and all that jazz.  (LUCENE-2657)

I *think* the consensus from the last thread was:
 1. the release manager does not need to worry about maven
 2. someone else (from lucene) may post maven artifacts
    2a. if the process becomes easy enough, the RM *may* post the artifacts.
 3. There needs to be some test to check if the artifacts are OK.

With Steve's work on LUCENE-2657, things are looking for for #2a and #3

ryan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

Robert Muir
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Ryan McKinley <[hidden email]> wrote:

> uggg -- sorry to see this thread flare up again -- especially since
> Steve is actively making great progress on better maven support --
> including integration tests and all that jazz.  (LUCENE-2657)
>
> I *think* the consensus from the last thread was:
>  1. the release manager does not need to worry about maven
>  2. someone else (from lucene) may post maven artifacts
>    2a. if the process becomes easy enough, the RM *may* post the artifacts.
>  3. There needs to be some test to check if the artifacts are OK.
>
> With Steve's work on LUCENE-2657, things are looking for for #2a and #3
>

I think its more complicated than that, someone else (from lucene) may
post artifacts? who votes on these separate maven artifacts?
are you saying that I can pipe /dev/null to some large files and post
them as maven artifacts without 3 +1 votes?

Personally I think we should keep our artifacts to a minimum. Shipping
jars is enough trouble if only source code is really whats needed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

Shai Erera
I don't understand what's so complicated about having an "ant maven" target in a modules/maven package that generates whatever artifacts are needed. It can be used by whoever wants to use Maven. Why do we need to "release" those artifacts? If maven is so important to people, then let's keep it under modules/maven and give people the right build tools to generate the artifacts.

Release-wise though, as long as running "ant test" from top-level dir ends with "BUILD SUCCESSFUL", the release should be good to go. We should publish the Source, Javadocs and .Jar files. While I agree the latter is not strictly mandatory, I think it's more widely used (than say Maven) and it makes consuming Lucene much easier.

Shai

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Robert Muir <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Ryan McKinley <[hidden email]> wrote:
> uggg -- sorry to see this thread flare up again -- especially since
> Steve is actively making great progress on better maven support --
> including integration tests and all that jazz.  (LUCENE-2657)
>
> I *think* the consensus from the last thread was:
>  1. the release manager does not need to worry about maven
>  2. someone else (from lucene) may post maven artifacts
>    2a. if the process becomes easy enough, the RM *may* post the artifacts.
>  3. There needs to be some test to check if the artifacts are OK.
>
> With Steve's work on LUCENE-2657, things are looking for for #2a and #3
>

I think its more complicated than that, someone else (from lucene) may
post artifacts? who votes on these separate maven artifacts?
are you saying that I can pipe /dev/null to some large files and post
them as maven artifacts without 3 +1 votes?

Personally I think we should keep our artifacts to a minimum. Shipping
jars is enough trouble if only source code is really whats needed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

Mark Miller-3

On Jan 16, 2011, at 11:21 PM, Shai Erera wrote:
>
> Release-wise though, as long as running "ant test" from top-level dir ends with "BUILD SUCCESSFUL", the release should be good to go. We should publish the Source, Javadocs and .Jar files. While I agree the latter is not strictly mandatory, I think it's more widely used (than say Maven) and it makes consuming Lucene much easier.
>

Agreed. Jars are just plain good for Lucene. When you tell the users that they have to build a release from source, that is a serious usage downer based on any experience I've managed to build up. Technically, you can release very lightly due to the 3 votes thing. But really, Lucene has always been about consensus more than the bare minimum rules. There has always been consensus about jars IMO (until Robert is now rocking the boat ;) ), but to my knowledge, there has never been consensus about Maven.

Personally, I still like the idea of Maven being handled down stream from Lucene with an interested committer placing the poms on apaches servers as his part of that downstream group.

Short of that, I'm still fairly fine with what Ryan said - lets do this release and not think about Maven - if others have it ready when we release, then so be it.

And FYI - the parallel maven build setup still scares me personally :)

- Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

Michael Busch
In reply to this post by Shai Erera
On 1/16/11 11:08 AM, Shai Erera wrote:
> I think the reasonable solution is to have a modules/maven package,
> with build.xml that generates whatever needs to be generated. Whoever
> cares about maven should run the proper Ant targets, just like whoever
> cares about Eclipse/IDEA can now run "ant eclipse/idea". We'd have an
> "ant maven". If that's what you intend doing in 2657 then fine.
>

The person "who cares about maven" is the one who puts a few lines of
xml into their ivy or maven config files, which downloads automatically
the specified version from a central repository.  It's a very convenient
thing and stopping to publish artifacts will require everyone who has
such a build system setup to change the way they get their Lucene jar files.

There is an impressive amount of tools available in maven repos, it'd
probably not be good if something as popular as Lucene was missing there.

I don't think any user needs the ability to run an ant target on
Lucene's sources to produce maven artifacts - what they want is
published artifacts in a central repo.

I personally don't need Lucene to be in such a repo, but I wanted to
point out why I think it can be very useful.

  Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

steve_rowe
On 1/17/2011 at 1:53 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
> I don't think any user needs the ability to run an ant target on
> Lucene's sources to produce maven artifacts

I want to be able to make modifications to the Lucene source, install Maven snapshot artifacts in my local repository, then depend on those snapshots from other projects.  I doubt I'm alone.

Steve
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

Earwin Burrfoot
You're not alone. :)
But, I bet, much more people would like to skip that step and have
their artifacts downloaded from central.

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 19:06, Steven A Rowe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 1/17/2011 at 1:53 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
>> I don't think any user needs the ability to run an ant target on
>> Lucene's sources to produce maven artifacts
>
> I want to be able to make modifications to the Lucene source, install Maven snapshot artifacts in my local repository, then depend on those snapshots from other projects.  I doubt I'm alone.
>
> Steve
>



--
Kirill Zakharenko/Кирилл Захаренко ([hidden email])
Phone: +7 (495) 683-567-4
ICQ: 104465785

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

Robert Muir
In reply to this post by steve_rowe
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Steven A Rowe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 1/17/2011 at 1:53 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
>> I don't think any user needs the ability to run an ant target on
>> Lucene's sources to produce maven artifacts
>
> I want to be able to make modifications to the Lucene source, install Maven snapshot artifacts in my local repository, then depend on those snapshots from other projects.  I doubt I'm alone.
>

And personally I would be totally fine with this, where maven is in
/dev-tools, just like eclipse and idea configuration, and we can even
put a whole README.txt in there that says "these are tools for
developers and if they start rotting they will be deleted without a
second thought".

but requiring special artifacts is a different story, its my
understanding that in anything but a "hello world" maven project you
need your own local repository anyway. So such a person can simply
install their own artifacts with /dev-tools into their local
repository... problem solved.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

Robert Muir
In reply to this post by Earwin Burrfoot
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Earwin Burrfoot <[hidden email]> wrote:
> You're not alone. :)
> But, I bet, much more people would like to skip that step and have
> their artifacts downloaded from central.

Maybe, but perhaps they will need to compromise and use jar files or
install into their local themselves, because currently they have to
use svn checkout since we are letting maven issues prevent us from
releasing.

I think its been too long since we had a release, I'm gonna forget
maven exists and start working towards a release. I'll cross my
fingers and hope that I can get 3 +1 votes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

Mattmann, Chris A (3010)
In reply to this post by steve_rowe
On Jan 17, 2011, at 8:06 AM, Steven A Rowe wrote:

> On 1/17/2011 at 1:53 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
>> I don't think any user needs the ability to run an ant target on
>> Lucene's sources to produce maven artifacts
>
> I want to be able to make modifications to the Lucene source, install Maven snapshot artifacts in my local repository, then depend on those snapshots from other projects.  I doubt I'm alone.

+1, you're not. The only way I've ever used Lucene has been via a Maven dependency, and that was the original way I found it starting way back in lucene-core-2.0.0. If Lucene wasn't in Maven, it would be a HUGE disappointment, and an impediment towards using it.

Cheers,
Chris

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: [hidden email]
WWW:   http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

steve_rowe
In reply to this post by Robert Muir
On 1/17/2011 at 11:25 AM, Robert Muir wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Steven A Rowe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 1/17/2011 at 1:53 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
> >> I don't think any user needs the ability to run an ant target on
> >> Lucene's sources to produce maven artifacts
> >
> > I want to be able to make modifications to the Lucene source, install
> > Maven snapshot artifacts in my local repository, then depend on those
> > snapshots from other projects.  I doubt I'm alone.
>
> And personally I would be totally fine with this, where maven is in
> /dev-tools, just like eclipse and idea configuration, and we can even
> put a whole README.txt in there that says "these are tools for
> developers and if they start rotting they will be deleted without a
> second thought".
>
> but requiring special artifacts is a different story

I have it wrong in LUCENE-2657.  It creates "special" artifacts intended for publishing via public Maven repositories.  But for the purposes of publishing (as opposed to locally modified sources), the artifacts published through public Maven repositories should be *exactly* the same ones produced by the Ant build, with the obvious exception of the POMs.  This is the model used by previous releases, and if we continue the tradition of publishing Maven artifacts (as we have since the 1.9.1 release), the model should not change.

Steve
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

Michael Busch
In reply to this post by steve_rowe
On 1/17/11 8:06 AM, Steven A Rowe wrote:
> On 1/17/2011 at 1:53 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
>> I don't think any user needs the ability to run an ant target on
>> Lucene's sources to produce maven artifacts
> I want to be able to make modifications to the Lucene source, install Maven snapshot artifacts in my local repository, then depend on those snapshots from other projects.  I doubt I'm alone.
>

This is something I would feel comfortable not supporting in Lucene
out-of-the-box, because if someone needs to use modified sources it's
not unreasonable to expect that they can also create their own pom files
for the modified jars.

I do think though that we should keep publishing "official" artifacts to
a central repo.

  Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Let's drop Maven Artifacts !

steve_rowe
On 1/17/2011 at 3:05 PM, Michael Busch wrote:

> On 1/17/11 8:06 AM, Steven A Rowe wrote:
> > On 1/17/2011 at 1:53 AM, Michael Busch wrote:
> >> I don't think any user needs the ability to run an ant target on
> >> Lucene's sources to produce maven artifacts
> > I want to be able to make modifications to the Lucene source, install
> > Maven snapshot artifacts in my local repository, then depend on those
> > snapshots from other projects.  I doubt I'm alone.
> >
>
> This is something I would feel comfortable not supporting in Lucene
> out-of-the-box, because if someone needs to use modified sources it's
> not unreasonable to expect that they can also create their own pom files
> for the modified jars.

This makes zero sense to me - no one will ever make their own POMs, except maybe the empty shells Maven will auto-create for you when run the install:install-file goal.

The key thing that LUCENE-2657 provides is POMs that can be verified correct via Maven itself - when Maven performs a build, the POMs are checked for correctness, and if the build fails, you can tell something is wrong.  Anything short of that won't cut it long term.

Maybe from your perspective building the project with the POMs is unnecessary, but from mine it is a *requirement*.  

And, happily IMHO, users get local build/install for free.

Steve

1234