|
»
»
buildtools vs. tools
|
View:
New views
5 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
buildtools vs. tools
by Travis E. Carlson
::
Rate this Message:
Hi guys,
I was just looking at the fact that we have both "buildtools" and "tools" as root-level directories. This seems a bit messy. I propose we do one of the following: 1. Merge the contents of "buildtools" into "tools" and just exclude the non-user-facing tools from the distro. 2. Make 2 subdirectories under "tools": "tools/build" and "tools/user" 3. Move "buildtools" under "distributions" Also, shouldn't "mule-assembly-verifier" (and perhaps "bobberplus") go under "buildtools" instead of "tools"? Any opinions? Travis --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email |
|
|
Re: buildtools vs. tools
by Andrew Perepelytsya
::
Rate this Message:
I'm afraid the real problem is cyclic dependencies. That's why there's buildtools which has minimum mule dependencies. I wouldn't shake that boat now, but we can definitely make an effort later. JIRA?
Andrew On 6/17/07, Travis Carlson <tcarlson@...> wrote: Hi guys, |
|
|
Re: buildtools vs. tools
by andrew cooke-2
::
Rate this Message:
Would (2) keep dependencies non-cyclic and be a partial solution (with a JIRA for more later)? (I only suggest this because I have been trying recently to think how my own work could improve and one of the things I identified was that I wasn't making enough small refactorings to improve things. So I'm now looking for examples where that approach might work.) Cheers, Andrew > I'm afraid the real problem is cyclic dependencies. That's why there's > buildtools which has minimum mule dependencies. I wouldn't shake that boat > now, but we can definitely make an effort later. JIRA? > > Andrew > > On 6/17/07, Travis Carlson <tcarlson@...> wrote: >> >> Hi guys, >> I was just looking at the fact that we have both "buildtools" and >> "tools" >> as root-level directories. This seems a bit messy. I propose we do one >> of >> the following: >> >> 1. Merge the contents of "buildtools" into "tools" and just exclude >> the >> non-user-facing tools from the distro. >> >> 2. Make 2 subdirectories under "tools": "tools/build" and "tools/user" >> >> 3. Move "buildtools" under "distributions" >> >> Also, shouldn't "mule-assembly-verifier" (and perhaps "bobberplus") go >> under "buildtools" instead of "tools"? >> >> Any opinions? >> >> Travis >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this list please visit: >> >> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email |
|
|
Re: buildtools vs. tools
by Andrew Perepelytsya
::
Rate this Message:
At the moment buildtools comes first in the reactor, and there's a reason for it - any codestyle checks and resources for the build are made available _before_ anything else. I'm not sure we can preserve that once it's moved under tools, though I haven't tried it.
In addition, scripts need to be updated if this refactoring takes place, which is an extra burden I personally wouldn't like to have at the moment. Andrew On 6/17/07,
andrew cooke <acooke@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Re: buildtools vs. tools
by andrew cooke-2
::
Rate this Message:
Ok (looks like I need to think smaller :o) Andrew > At the moment buildtools comes first in the reactor, and there's a reason > for it - any codestyle checks and resources for the build are made > available > _before_ anything else. I'm not sure we can preserve that once it's moved > under tools, though I haven't tried it. > > In addition, scripts need to be updated if this refactoring takes place, > which is an extra burden I personally wouldn't like to have at the moment. > > Andrew > > On 6/17/07, andrew cooke <acooke@...> wrote: >> >> >> Would (2) keep dependencies non-cyclic and be a partial solution (with a >> JIRA for more later)? >> >> (I only suggest this because I have been trying recently to think how my >> own work could improve and one of the things I identified was that I >> wasn't making enough small refactorings to improve things. So I'm now >> looking for examples where that approach might work.) >> >> Cheers, >> Andrew >> >> > I'm afraid the real problem is cyclic dependencies. That's why there's >> > buildtools which has minimum mule dependencies. I wouldn't shake that >> boat >> > now, but we can definitely make an effort later. JIRA? >> > >> > Andrew >> > >> > On 6/17/07, Travis Carlson <tcarlson@...> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi guys, >> >> I was just looking at the fact that we have both "buildtools" and >> >> "tools" >> >> as root-level directories. This seems a bit messy. I propose we do >> one >> >> of >> >> the following: >> >> >> >> 1. Merge the contents of "buildtools" into "tools" and just exclude >> >> the >> >> non-user-facing tools from the distro. >> >> >> >> 2. Make 2 subdirectories under "tools": "tools/build" and >> "tools/user" >> >> >> >> 3. Move "buildtools" under "distributions" >> >> >> >> Also, shouldn't "mule-assembly-verifier" (and perhaps "bobberplus") >> go >> >> under "buildtools" instead of "tools"? >> >> >> >> Any opinions? >> >> >> >> Travis >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe from this list please visit: >> >> >> >> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this list please visit: >> >> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
