Many many thanks for taking the time to explain it in so much detail, Jean-Louis.
I now understand that plugins, buildtypes and skeletons are not well suited to be distributed in a Maven formatted, POM enforcing environment like Maven Central No objections from me again using bintray, you've convinced me that Macen Central would be a bad fit and something else is needed. On 2013-05-09, Jean-Louis Boudart wrote: > We may have in future plugins that couldn't be hosted as ASF as they may > have incompatible licenses. It's for example the case for chekstyle/sonar > plugins. > It would be easier if have *one entry point* for users. That's why we > created http://repository.easyant.org. Understood. And I don't see any reason why bintray would be worse a choice than a self-hosted website. > Then we could isolate apache plugins from external ones by having two > internal repositories : > - http://repository.easyant.org/apache-easyant/ > - http://repository.easyant.org/community-easyant/ First of all, we'd still distribute all Apache releases via dist.apache.org, but there isn't any reason why they couldn't be distributed via different channels as well - just like Maven Central is a different channel or CPAN or gem servers are. I'm not quite sure why you'd want to have the separate internal repositories. Is this so people can stick to Apache compatible stuff only if they really want to - to spare them the time to read the license itself? If the distribution point you are talking about is outside of the ASF there is nobody forcing you to separate stuff, of course you can do so. Thanks again Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org
