On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 8:03 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@xxxxxxxxxxxx
about your point about we never fully build the project, even if I
agree, it's what we "sold" with Gradle.
Because, with Maven you can also build a single module without problem.
Good incremental support for the edit/build/test cycle is critical, which (for me at least) seems to have improved a lot.
One particularly painful scenario was "I want to test changes in module B that depends on changes in module A."
So, if I don't get the argument about build time for single module: in
that case, build speed was not a valid argument for Maven to Gradle topic.
Again, I would like to emphasize about the contribution adoption.
If you really think that documenting & improving the build system using
Gradle, that's fine.
About the effort to go back on Maven, I really think that it's do-able.
Probably this thread will end nowhere and we will stay with Gradle,
that's fair. I just hope that we won't have any "brake" on contribution.
Again, don't get my wrong, I just wanted to bring the discussion on the
table, no pressure, no harsh, just a fairly discussion and concern that
I wanted to share ;)
I'm really glad you brought this up. Hopefully this will be a call to action for those that sold Gradle to (finish) delivering on what was promised. Or even if we went back to Maven, ended up in a state better than what we could have had with Gradle (if we determined it wasn't fixable or going to be fixed). It seems like most IDEs have support for gradle in general, so I'd be inclined to agree with Kenn that it's an issue with how we're using it rather than the tool itself. I'm less convinced it's up to each module owner to clean this up locally (unless there's some good pattern to follow). Recognizing we have a problem is the first step.