On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nope, 1.6. > > This is sort of what I meant when I said it's harder to do these > releases. How is one supposed to KNOW what versions of these 30 or 40 > plugins you have to have in order to build a release?
and what if one doesn't want to be on a weird mismash version of Maven for other projects :) > Does Jakarta or Jakarta-commons have a page that tells you the minimum > maven setup needed to do a site release? If not, it probably should > have. I know this is a dynamic process, but this is nuts. > > And then the other direction. I shudder to think what would have > happened if I had tried maven 2.0. Somewhere a volcano would have erupted. > Hate to be an "old fart" here but was ant really all that bad? Being a "stupid fart", does Maven have to be this bad? :) I suspect it does, because we're trying to use it as a power-tool when Maven works best as a standardisation tool. Increasingly thinking that we should decouple the site from the components. Reports would then be tied to builds, so as part of this release, Net would be building a small number of Reports and putting them under a versioned space. The site would then link into them much the same way it does the downloads. > Anyway, the site is deployed. It's gradually pushing itself out to all > the servers. Just the one server I think :) The site is rsync'd every hour or two to 'ajax' in Europe. The distributables however are mirrored. Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
