25 Mar
2011
25 Mar
'11
8:57 a.m.
I don't see any reason that would force us to support 2.2.x (if you
can run 2.2 there is no reason you can't run 3.0, it's not like 3.0
was working on minimum Java 6 or something) and that would improve our
ci build.
Plus I pref having a build detified working on 3.0 than 2.2 and I
don't want to build everything twice with both maven versions on our
ci build just for that.
WDYT ?
--
Thomas Mortagne
25 Mar
25 Mar
9:10 a.m.
Hi,
On Mar 25, 2011, at 8:57 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
I don't see any reason that would force us to
support 2.2.x (if you
can run 2.2 there is no reason you can't run 3.0, it's not like 3.0
was working on minimum Java 6 or something) and that would improve our
ci build.
Plus I pref having a build detified working on 3.0 than 2.2 and I
don't want to build everything twice with both maven versions on our
ci build just for that.
WDYT ?
+1
Thanks
-Vincent
10:07 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [VOTE] Move to maven 3 as the minimum supported version instead of 2.2.1
+1
Thanks,
Marius
On 03/25/2011 09:57 AM, Thomas Mortagne wrote:
I don't see any reason that would force us to
support 2.2.x (if you
can run 2.2 there is no reason you can't run 3.0, it's not like 3.0
was working on minimum Java 6 or something) and that would improve our
ci build.
Plus I pref having a build detified working on 3.0 than 2.2 and I
don't want to build everything twice with both maven versions on our
ci build just for that.
WDYT ?
10:23 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [VOTE] Move to maven 3 as the minimum supported version instead of 2.2.1
Honestly, I have a hard time to keep up with the maven versions...
I was somewhat more active at maven 1 and now maven 3 would be imposed me...
My +0.
paul
Le 25 mars 2011 à 08:57, Thomas Mortagne a écrit :
I don't see any reason that would force us to
support 2.2.x (if you
can run 2.2 there is no reason you can't run 3.0, it's not like 3.0
was working on minimum Java 6 or something) and that would improve our
ci build.
Plus I pref having a build detified working on 3.0 than 2.2 and I
don't want to build everything twice with both maven versions on our
ci build just for that.
WDYT ?
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
10:39 a.m.
Hi Paul,
On Mar 25, 2011, at 10:23 AM, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
Honestly, I have a hard time to keep up with the maven
versions...
I was somewhat more active at maven 1 and now maven 3 would be imposed me...
Well this is only if you need to build xwiki from sources and honestly installing maven is
so easy (takes exactly 1 minute last time I timed it!) that I can't see this as a real
blocker :)
Note that maven3 is much better than the 2 and a lot faster so you'll benefit ;)
Thanks for your feedback though.
-Vincent
My +0.
paul
Le 25 mars 2011 à 08:57, Thomas Mortagne a écrit :
> I don't see any reason that would force us to support 2.2.x (if you
> can run 2.2 there is no reason you can't run 3.0, it's not like 3.0
> was working on minimum Java 6 or something) and that would improve our
> ci build.
>
> Plus I pref having a build detified working on 3.0 than 2.2 and I
> don't want to build everything twice with both maven versions on our
> ci build just for that.
>
> WDYT ?
>
> --
> Thomas Mortagne
10:50 a.m.
Le 25 mars 2011 à 10:39, Vincent Massol a écrit :
Hence the +0.
Was it Curriki, I had bragged.
Honestly, I
have a hard time to keep up with the maven versions...
I was somewhat more active at maven 1 and now maven 3 would be imposed me...
Well this is only if you need to build xwiki from sources and honestly installing maven
is so easy (takes exactly 1 minute last time I timed it!) that I can't see this as a
real blocker :) Note that maven3 is much better than the 2 and a lot
faster so you'll benefit ;)
Thanks for your feedback though.
I feel there's a use in staying at classics such as older maven or older ant. Everyone
knows them and you don't have to relearn.
But I am sure Thomas had arguments in favor of Maven3... he did not mention them.
paul
10:54 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [VOTE] Move to maven 3 as the minimum supported version instead of 2.2.1
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:50, Paul Libbrecht <paul(a)hoplahup.net> wrote:
Le 25 mars 2011 à 10:39, Vincent Massol a écrit :
Hence the +0.
Was it Curriki, I had bragged.
As i said there is first:
"Plus I prefer having a build certified working on 3.0 than 2.2 and I
don't want to build everything twice with both maven versions on our
ci build just for that." (with some corrections ;))
Also same argument as Vincent: maven 3 has better performance and is
the last one and i don't see why we would use an older one
Honestly,
I have a hard time to keep up with the maven versions...
I was somewhat more active at maven 1 and now maven 3 would be imposed me...
Well this is only if you need to build xwiki from sources and honestly installing maven
is so easy (takes exactly 1 minute last time I timed it!) that I can't see this as a
real blocker :) Note that maven3 is much better than the 2 and a
lot faster so you'll benefit ;)
Thanks for your feedback though.
I feel there's a use in staying at classics such as older maven or older ant.
Everyone knows them and you don't have to relearn.
But I am sure Thomas had arguments in favor of Maven3... he did not mention them.
paul
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Thomas Mortagne
11:01 a.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] [VOTE] Move to maven 3 as the minimum supported version instead of 2.2.1
On 03/25/2011 10:50 AM, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
Le 25 mars 2011 à 10:39, Vincent Massol a écrit :
Hence the +0.
Was it Curriki, I had bragged.
There's not much to learn, unlike M1->M2, which was a bit
groundbreaking, M2->M3 is much more backwards compatible. Most of the
changes are in the internals, not in the usage. From the user's
perspective, there are a few more command line parameters that can be
used to optimize the build process. The POM structure is unchanged, most
plugins are still there and work the same way, the command line syntax
is the same.
Honestly,
I have a hard time to keep up with the maven versions...
I was somewhat more active at maven 1 and now maven 3 would be imposed me...
Well this is only if you need to build xwiki from sources and honestly installing maven
is so easy (takes exactly 1 minute last time I timed it!) that I can't see this as a
real blocker :) Note that maven3 is much better than the 2 and a
lot faster so you'll benefit ;)
Thanks for your feedback though.
I feel there's a use in staying at classics such as older maven or older ant.
Everyone knows them and you don't have to relearn. But I am sure Thomas had arguments in favor of
Maven3... he did not mention them.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
4977
days inactive
4977
days old
7 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Paul Libbrecht -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol