Simon Kitching wrote:
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 23:58 +0200, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 16:27 +0200, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
There are a lot of hand made poms in the repo so i don't see that as a problem.
AFAIK the difference between api and implementation is the
dependencies section, so it's just a matter of copying it and strip
all unneded deps (all of them?).
+1
any volunteers...?
- robert
I can do it. We only need to agree on a suitable place in SVN where we
can store it.
I'm currently working on the two securitymanager-related bugs we
introduced into logging in the last release; these cause problems for
people running code in applets and similar restricted environments. A
unit test that demonstrates the problem has already been committed (and
fails).
Once that is done, I think we should get a 1.1.1 release out with that
plus the fixed maven poms; having all the dependencies declared
mandatory is rather unpleasant. Plus junit should be scope=test of
course.
I don't think that we can fix the current pom for commons-logging
completely. What we can do is publish a pom especially for
commons-logging-api, that people can use as their dependency.
Regarding the place for the pom.xml, can't we just put it in the trunk
directory? Of course we need to comment it, so people don't think it can
be used to *build* jcl.
Sounds good. If we call it commons-logging-api.pom then nobody will
think of actually using it to build commons-logging.
And by the way, the new nightly-build system is currently set up to use
maven1; that needs to be fixed to use ant instead I think. AFAIK, the
maven1 project.xml just creates the site.
Yep, Maven is only working OK for the site for commons-logging. It can
compile things, but it won't compile everything.
Oh, and can we get rid of all that ${pom.artifactId.substring(8)} stuff?
It's confusing, and I don't see the benefits as this project isn't going
to change its name. Just putting "logging" in there would be so much
clearer.
I don't know the history for that, by I think it has something to do
with meaning to use a common parent that every component could inherit
from. That idea has been rejected, so I see no reason for having these,
other than making it easy to copy-and-paste stuff from other components
project.xml files.
Regards,
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
