> And if m2 switch makes life miserable for developers for at least a
> few months, it looks like too high of a price to pay. Also we are
> exporting POMs to ibiblio already, so other m2 projects that rely on
> Cayenne can use it.
>
> I guess I am leaning to Kevin's opinion of not fixing things that
> ain't broken. We can still try m2 as a parallel build system for jpa,
> just to get a feel of it, but like I said, I am more and more
> discouraged regarding the overall move.
>
One big negative is yet another CVS reorg. It makes it extremely
difficult to gain access to revision history. Granted, this isn't the
worst thing that's ever happened, but its close in my opinion :) If we
do end up changing VCS systems at a future point in time, it might be
easier to consider something like this - particularly since we can
reorg in a separate branch while we experiment, then relatively easily
wind it back into trunk (since the files preserve their history across
moves, renames and branches). This could minimize developer impact.
I do think m2 is a waste for a project like Cayenne, though... we have
few outside dependencies. We also have several separate projects
(Modeler, DVModeler, cayenne itself) and I think m2 makes that sort of
sub-project environment a little more difficult than it has to be.
Plus, my biggest pet peeve about maven has always been how annoying it
is to work in an IDE, with the weird place it locates libs, etc. I
don't know if m2 is better in this respect, though...
Cris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Thu Feb 23 2006 - 14:08:25 EST