UHM given the current status I guess I would have less pain if I take it as it currently is... :P
-Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi http://www.99soft.org/ On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Simone Tripodi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hola Tom, > > yes that makes perfectly sense - I'll just drop the second layer of > parent pom which only contributes to make thing a little confusional > (at least by my experience) > > thanks and best! > -Simo > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi > http://www.99soft.org/ > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Tommaso Teofili > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Simo, >> what you propose makes sense, however I think the plans are also to >> gradually re-introduce, at least, the spec and signature modules thus I'm >> not sure about it. >> Cheers, >> Tommaso >> >> 2012/7/3 Simone Tripodi <[email protected]> >> >>> Hi all guys, >>> >>> since the only module we process ATM is the oath2.0 (and related >>> submodules), do you agree I move submodules on top level? Maybe I >>> missed some discussions to keep them as they are currently? >>> >>> Best, >>> -Simo >>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ >>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi >>> http://www.99soft.org/ >>>
