Re: Lenya and Maven

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Richard Frovarp wrote:

 > On 7/16/2010 3:34 AM, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
 > > Am 16.07.10 09:55, schrieb Vik Tara:
 > > > On 07/16/2010 08:53 AM, Vik Tara wrote:
 > > > > > 
 > > > > > WDYT ?
 > > > > 
 > > > > 
 > > > > Makes sense. We could do something very quick and dirty :), as maven
 > > > > can just call ant tasks.
 > > > > 
 > > > > So as a first step perhaps just make lenya build from maven by calling
 > > > > the exsiting ant tasks - and then replace them one by one?
 > > > > 
 > > > > This way everything will continue to work ok.
 > > > 
 > > > A pause for thought though...
 > > > 
 > > > Should we do this right now - or should we do it in the future lenya
 > > > version.
 > > > 
 > > > We may spend a fair bit of time doing this now - time which we could
 > > > spend making new modules etc.
 > > 
 > > I totally agree. Fundamental changes to the build process of a stable app
 > > might be not such a good idea. There are many risks of breaking things, and
 > > you introduce a barrier for people who are familiar with the current build
 > > process.
 > > 
 > > > What are the benefits of doing it now?
 > > 
 > > * Use Maven's dependency mechanism for our module dependencies
 > > * Get rid of our custom dependency management
 > > * Reduce the size of the repository
 > > 
 > > But I agree that we should rather spend our limited resources on code that
 > > creates a direct benefit for users.
 > > 
 > > -- Andreas
 > > 
 > > 
 > I'm a big fan of maven, but I'm with Andreas on this one. I don't think that
 > a switch to Maven on the current branch (2.1.x) is worth the risks. As a
 > community, I think we have more urgent needs than switching the current
 > version to maven. Here's my list:

OK, I see your point, Richard.

 > 1) Fix editor problem (some tasks are remaining)
 > 2) Better documentation (specifically surrounding editor problems)
 > 3) Release 2.1.0
 > 4) Close tickets (over 200 open, some for years, looks very bad)
 > 5) Design V3
 > 6) Implement V3
 > 
 > At the meeting, there was strong consensus that v3 is going to be completely
 > different. It will be built from the ground up on JCR and Cocoon probably
 > won't be our primary engine. V3 will be built from the ground up to use maven
 > and probably OSGi. The issues surrounding converting the existing project to
 > maven won't be the same with a fresh project.
 > 
 > I think we need to do 1 & 2 above quickly, which would result in 3. We should
 > also be working towards 5, so we can do 6. It would be so nice to go to
 > Apache Con in November with a design for v3 and to be able to encourage
 > people to work on the project.
 > 
 > The 2.2 branch is there to do Cocoon 2.2 and maven. Experimenting there,
 > learning there is a good thing and can be a useful set of skills and
 > experiences for the future. I am -1 on switching 2.1.x to maven.

Actually, I was going to propose to do new development and migration to maven on 
different branches, with the possibility to merge later on.

So, I'm +1 on your proposal.

  Rainer