On Sat, 2006-05-13 at 11:30 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote: > On 5/13/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 08:51 +0200, Nicolas De Loof wrote: > > > I agree about NOT making non-final jars available on ibiblio (httpclient > > > beeing an exception) > > > So could the next RC be uploaded to > > > http://cvs.apache.org/maven-snapshot-repository/ ? > > > > > > Please also consider using the new groupId recommandation for apache > > > commons-X : org.apache.commons.X > > > > should we make this change for the whole of the commons? > > > I would be in favour of that. The sooner all ASF projects use a consistent > groupId scheme, the better. > > how much hassle would this change be for downstream consumers? > > > Virtually none, as long as we make the change obvious, e.g. by including the > groupId and artifactId in release announcements and download pages, or > somewhere of that sort.
What happens if someone has a project that has the following dependencies: project depends on A, B A depends on group=commons-lang, artifact=commons-lang B depends on group=org.apache.commons.lang, artifact=commons-lang Is maven smart enough to avoid putting lang in the dependencies twice? There is a special POM entry that can indicate a "relocation" of the target. I don't know the details of how this works though. http://maven.apache.org/ref/current/maven-model/maven.html#class_relocation In general, though, I'm in favour of the move to a properly structured group-id. As maven gets more popular (the repo gains more entries), the existing flattish structure becomes harder to manage. And from the volume of messages on the maven lists, its popularity is growing fast.. Regards, Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
