sebb wrote: > On 8 November 2010 04:14, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:03 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I just checked, and the tag agrees with the source archive - apart >>> from the sandbox tree, which is only in the tag. >>> >> >> Huh? If you look at the tag that is supposed to be for 1.0 here: >> >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/vfs/tags/vfs-1.0/ >> >> It contains a pom.xml file in the "root" directory. If you download >> an unzip/untar the source distributions from here: >> >> http://commons.apache.org/vfs/download_vfs.cgi >> >> they do not. How do they agree? Am I looking in the wrong place? > > Sorry, I overlooked the top-level pom.xml in all the other differences > (sandbox). > > So there was a packaging error.
I don't think that the M2 build was ready yet (no executed tests). It was IMHO left out of the binaries on purpose. Vfs 1.0 was meant to be built with M1. - Jörg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
