2009/9/2 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> > Why is there a need to wait for bnd to be in central given that the source > code is included in the bundle plugin project ? > Is that just temporary ?
yes - Peter has his own Maven repo for Bnd, but unfortunately this is not sync'd to central (I've suggested he sets up sync'ing a number of times, but this is not high on his todo list) we don't use Peter's repository in the bundleplugin pom.xml because it's not good practice (the additional repository would then get hit for all maven artifacts, not just the bnd groupId) previously I've got Carlos to upload the artifact manually, but this gets very tiresome during development which is why I decided to just put a copy of the source there at the moment if we released the plugin with this source then you wouldn't be able to override the bnd version during the build (because there's no dependency) and it makes things messy > Also did anyone asked for the new version to be > put in central already ? > I was just about to - there's been a few regressions in the recent builds, but Peter has just blessed 0.0.356 as a good build. Bear in mind that a manual upload to central can take a while, depending who's available to do the upload (which is why sync is better). On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:36, Stuart McCulloch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 2009/9/2 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> > > > > > I've tried to release gogo this morning and after fixing a few things, > > i've > > > badly hit FELIX-1262 which is actually fixed in the latest snapshot of > > the > > > maven bundle plugin. > > > Is this plugin in a state to be released now ? > > > > > > > no it's not in a state to be released - for one we want to move to the > > latest bndlib (and first we need that available on central) > > > > > > > I can try to release it unless somebody is willing to do it. What > would > > be > > > the version to use ? 2.0.1, 2.0.2 ? Not sure to have a good > > understanding > > > of the version scheme with odd/even numbers for minor releases. > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 08:25, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > I'd like to release a first version of Gogo. > > > > However, given the RFC is bound to change and that we might introduce > > > > other changes that will break the syntax, I wonder if we should use a > > > > 0.2.0 version instead of 1.0.0. > > > > In addition, we will release the org.osgi.service.command package > > > > which is not official, so I think keeping a version < 1.0.0 makes > > > > sense until a spec is released for that. > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Cheers, > > > > Guillaume Nodet > > > > ------------------------ > > > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > > > > ------------------------ > > > > Open Source SOA > > > > http://fusesource.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Cheers, > > > Guillaume Nodet > > > ------------------------ > > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > > > ------------------------ > > > Open Source SOA > > > http://fusesource.com > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers, Stuart > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > ------------------------ > Open Source SOA > http://fusesource.com > -- Cheers, Stuart
