[JGIT RFC] Mavenized JGit

> Hi,
> 
> I have successfully Mavenized JGit (at least partially :)) to make it
> independent of IDE to develop on. I will also add a code-file format
> checker soon. Please have a look at it and let me know what you think
> and how it can be improved. If its helpful I will surely send out a
> patch in this regard. The one thing that I did not configure is the
> external test (exttst), doing that and the code format checker is my
> next step.
> The 'jgit-mavenize' branch of my fork of egit contains it.
> (http://repo.or.cz/w/egit/imyousuf.git?a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/jgit-mavenize).

> tisdagen den 3 juni 2008 16.42.33 skrev Imran M Yousuf:
> > I have successfully Mavenized JGit (at least partially :)) to make it
> > independent of IDE to develop on. I will also add a code-file format
> > checker soon. Please have a look at it and let me know what you think
> > and how it can be improved. If its helpful I will surely send out a
> > patch in this regard. The one thing that I did not configure is the
> > external test (exttst), doing that and the code format checker is my
> > next step.
> > The 'jgit-mavenize' branch of my fork of egit contains it.
> > (http://repo.or.cz/w/egit/imyousuf.git?a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/jgit-mavenize).
> 
> An abvious problem is that JGit does not handle symbolic links and those do
> not work well (if at all) under git on windows either. Cygwin will not do here,
> unless you accompany it with a cygwin java build (if such a thing exists). Mingw
> also does not support them.

> onsdagen den 4 juni 2008 00.54.18 skrev Shawn O. Pearce:
>> I don't think there is a Cygwin based version of the JVM.  That would
>> be a very interesting beast.
> Looks like it could be possible to build it under Cygwin.
> http://download.java.net/jdk7/docs/build/README-builds.html#cygwin
>
> -- robin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:30 AM, Robin Rosenberg
> <robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com> wrote:
> > onsdagen den 4 juni 2008 00.54.18 skrev Shawn O. Pearce:
> >> I don't think there is a Cygwin based version of the JVM.  That would
> >> be a very interesting beast.
> > Looks like it could be possible to build it under Cygwin.
> > http://download.java.net/jdk7/docs/build/README-builds.html#cygwin

>
> But this shows one reason why I don't use Maven I think.  The
> fact that we need a "java" directory to hold our java code.
> What if another build system wants a different name?  Grumble.
>

>>
>> But this shows one reason why I don't use Maven I think.  The
>> fact that we need a "java" directory to hold our java code.
>> What if another build system wants a different name?  Grumble.
>>
>
> You don't. Just set the appropriate config item in pom.xml
> (sourceDirectory possibly, but my memory isn't good this morning) and
> you can use 'src' as it is currently. src/main/java is just the
> default.

> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Nigel Magnay <nigel.magnay@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> But this shows one reason why I don't use Maven I think.  The
> >> fact that we need a "java" directory to hold our java code.
> >> What if another build system wants a different name?  Grumble.
> >>
> >
> > You don't. Just set the appropriate config item in pom.xml
> > (sourceDirectory possibly, but my memory isn't good this morning) and
> > you can use 'src' as it is currently. src/main/java is just the
> > default.
> 
> You are absolutely right in fact (your memory did not betray ;)) its
> <project><build><sourceDirectory>.

> Imran M Yousuf <imyousuf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Nigel Magnay <nigel.magnay@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> But this shows one reason why I don't use Maven I think.  The
>> >> fact that we need a "java" directory to hold our java code.
>> >> What if another build system wants a different name?  Grumble.
>> >>
>> >
>> > You don't. Just set the appropriate config item in pom.xml
>> > (sourceDirectory possibly, but my memory isn't good this morning) and
>> > you can use 'src' as it is currently. src/main/java is just the
>> > default.
>>
>> You are absolutely right in fact (your memory did not betray ;)) its
>> <project><build><sourceDirectory>.
>
> If we can avoid doing this rename and instead just configure Maven
> to use the existing directory it would be better.  Then we don't
> have to bother everyone's branches with this rename business.
>

> Imran M Yousuf <imyousuf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Nigel Magnay <nigel.magnay@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> But this shows one reason why I don't use Maven I think.  The
>> >> fact that we need a "java" directory to hold our java code.
>> >> What if another build system wants a different name?  Grumble.
>> >>
>> >
>> > You don't. Just set the appropriate config item in pom.xml
>> > (sourceDirectory possibly, but my memory isn't good this morning) and
>> > you can use 'src' as it is currently. src/main/java is just the
>> > default.
>>
>> You are absolutely right in fact (your memory did not betray ;)) its
>> <project><build><sourceDirectory>.
>
> If we can avoid doing this rename and instead just configure Maven
> to use the existing directory it would be better.  Then we don't
> have to bother everyone's branches with this rename business.

> Imran M Yousuf <imyousuf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The first version I mavenized JGit I moved the source code, but I
>>...
>> welcomed or not.
>
> [please don't top-post on this list]

>
> I'd rather us moving the code into a subdirectory than require
> a symlink.  For Eclipse this is easy to change the directory that
> the code is in, we just have to edit the .classpath to move the
> source folder lower in the tree.
>
> But this shows one reason why I don't use Maven I think.  The
> fact that we need a "java" directory to hold our java code.
> What if another build system wants a different name?  Grumble.

>
> For the most part git-merge-recursive can handle a merge through
> this sort of rename.  But we'd like to do this sort of thing at
> some relatively stable point in time to try and minimize the impact
> it has.

>
>
> Imran M Yousuf wrote:
>>
>> I am sorry for my ignorance, I thought that maven was the most widely
>> accepted java build tool, but what you said is a possibility.
>>
>
> For what it's worth, Ant is the most popular build tool. Ant + Ivy (a
> dependency manager) is a great choice. My Next Best Thing (TM) is Gradle
> (www.gradle.org). I wouldn't choose Maven because it makes creating custom
> logic harder and some functionality (like assembly) is no mature. I can
> elaborate on the subject, if people are interested.
>

> Ittay
>
> --
> Ittay Dror <ittayd@tikalk.com>
> Tikal <http://www.tikalk.com>
> Tikal Project <http://tikal.sourceforge.net>
>
>

>
> For what it's worth, Ant is the most popular build tool. Ant + Ivy (a
> dependency manager) is a great choice. My Next Best Thing (TM) is Gradle
> (www.gradle.org). I wouldn't choose Maven because it makes creating custom
> logic harder and some functionality (like assembly) is no mature. I can
> elaborate on the subject, if people are interested.

>
> Ittay
>
> --
> Ittay Dror <ittayd@tikalk.com>
> Tikal <http://www.tikalk.com>
> Tikal Project <http://tikal.sourceforge.net>
>
>