Now, I'm starting to see headaches in all this. Its looking alot like a premature optimization to me. I'm becomeing more tempted to suggest we loose the extend of commons-build/project.xml in each project. We simply maintain consistent project.xml's across all the projects.
-Mark
Martin Cooper wrote:
How does this work, though, if someone downloads a source distro? Is there going to be a source distro for commons-build that someone (?) maintains and builds? How would the right version of that get associated with any given component source distro?
The people who usually download source distros often do so because they are not able to use CVS, for whatever reason, to obtain the files that way. So they will not have the ability to use a label to make the version association, and they will need to download a second, separate, source distro in order to build what they originally wanted.
That just doesn't seem workable to me.
-- Martin Cooper
"Gary Gregory" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] IMO, it is fine to say: In order to build [project] you also need [commons-build].
Gary
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Mark Diggory Software Developer Harvard MIT Data Center http://www.hmdc.harvard.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
