Hi, Stuart McCulloch schrieb: > 2009/4/18 Felix Meschberger <[email protected]> > >> Hi, >> >> Clement Escoffier schrieb: >>> Hi, >>> On 18.04.2009, at 11:41, Felix Meschberger wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Stuart, >>>> >>>> Stuart McCulloch schrieb: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to stage a new release of our parent pom (ie. pom/pom.xml) - >>>>> this >>>>> will exercise the new release process. >>>>> Are there any objections to starting this? Does anyone have any >>>>> changes they >>>>> would like to make to this pom? >>>>> >>>>> Note that this isn't a vote on the actual release - I will start that >>>>> once >>>>> I've staged it using Nexus. >>>>> >>>>> Also please hold off from any new releases until I've tried out the new >>>>> process and documented it on the wiki :) >>>> Can we split the parent pom (definitions pertaining to all Felix >>>> projects) and reactor (<modules> section) functionalities into into two >>>> files by that matter ? >>>> >>>> We could for example create a reactor project at trunk, which stays at >>>> SNAPSHOT version for ever and which we can update as we see fit to >>>> accomodate new child projects. >>>> >>>> The actual parent pom would remain where it was and would be updated and >>>> released for release new general setup such as the deployment >>>> configuration. >>>> >>>> In addition it is IMO also a matter of separation of concerns (reactor >>>> vs. general setup). We have done this in the Sling and Jackrabbit >>>> projects with much success (IMHO). >>> I agree having two files: >>> - one with the reactor configuration and >>> - one with the release / project configuration >>> sounds good. >>> >>> Projects should inherit of the release / project configuration pom file. >>> >>> However, aren't we already in this mode ? Recently, I saw a pom file in >>> the Felix root (the reactor one ?) and one in the pom folder. >> I was confused by this file, too. >> >> But the actual reactor is in the pom/pom.xml file. >> > > That's not quite right - Carsten created a top-level pom with a copy of the > reactor and left
Missed that one. Thanks for the update. > the old modules definition in the parent pom. Since then new modules have > been added > to the top-level pom (hence the email about the build not working from the > "pom" dir) > > I've removed the modules definition from the parent pom, because it's not > needed anymore > and just causes confusion (like this;) ... from now on modules should be > added to the pom > at the top of the project tree. > > So the top-level pom now has the reactor, and the parent pom has the global > settings Great ! Regards Felix > >>> Another idea would to use -Pprofile name instead of -Dpackaging=xxx. For >>> example we can define a "default", a test profile, and an example >> Sounds reasonable. >> >> Regards >> Felix >> >>> profile... The -Dpackaging=xxx was introduced to turn around a bug in >>> Maven avoiding having different packaging types in a project. However, >>> this issue is now fixed. So, maybe we can just remove this separation. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Clement >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Felix >>>> >>> > > >
