If that is the case, then why don't we add support to auto-generate this for each build and stuff the required bits into the maven repository?
--jason On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Joe Bohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Donald Woods wrote: >> >> Seems that we need a unique plugin repo for each release, given how we now >> build plugins based on the content in pom.xml instead of supplying a >> separate plugin file.... Maybe there are some additional car-maven-plugin >> enhancements needed, so you can define a range or that any sever release is >> supported by the plugin/car being built. Or maybe as David Jencks has >> suggested elsewhere, we need to setup the artifact_aliases.properties in >> each server release to alias prior releases (like 2.1 and 2.1.1) to the >> current release (which would be 2.1.2 for the next release.) > > Heh ... funny you should mention this now. I came the same conclusion > yesterday as well (ie. we need a catalog per release given our current > process for creating the plugins). I've decided that we need a catalog per > release for those already out the door and we can think of getting more > creative for future releases. > > Joe > > >> >> >> -Donald >> >> >> Joe Bohn wrote: >>> >>> I've got some questions (and possibly some issues) with the plugin >>> repository for Geronimo 2.1.1. I went out there attempting to update the >>> plugin catalog after the release of 2.1.1 (as I had done after 2.1 was >>> released). However, I hit some issues and have some questions: >>> >>> 1) I learned too late that the download plugin repository list should >>> have been changed before we cut the release if we wanted the unique catalog >>> for 2.1.1 plugins to be the default (specified in >>> framework/configs/plugin/pom.xml). As it stands now, the default plugin >>> catalog for Geronimo 2.1.1 is pointing to the catalog for Geronimo 2.1. >>> >>> 2) Perhaps sharing the plugin catalog is the correct thing. I'm really >>> not sure if that is best (or even possible). Can we have one catalog >>> support multiple Geronimo releases? ... I would presume we could. Is that >>> what people were assuming or is the assumption a catalog per release? >>> >>> 3) Assuming we should have our own catalog for G 2.1.1 .... I created one >>> and put it under out there under >>> geronimo/site/trunk/docs/plugins/geronimo-2.1.1/. Naturally, you must >>> manually add the catalog for 2.1.1 since the default wasn't updated prior to >>> the release. >>> >>> 4) The catalog from #3 seems to work but I think I need to update some of >>> the plugins (esp. samples) so that they are supported on Geronimo 2.1.1. So >>> it appears that regardless of if we have shared or unique catalogs among >>> releases we will need to update the plugins to support the newer releases if >>> they are shared. Is that correct? (I specifically attempted to install the >>> 2.1-SNAPSHOT jsp sample which failed in 2.1.1 due to missing 2.1 >>> dependencies). >>> >>> >>> I was a bit thrown off by all of this since we didn't have to make the >>> same change for the download list when Geronimo 2.1 was released even though >>> we did update the catalog. This was because the version of the catalog was >>> already specified as 2.1 even while the server itself was still >>> 2.1-SNAPSHOT. I wonder if it is wise to have the catalog listed as if >>> released even when the dependent server (and plugins) are not. BTW, this is >>> also the current case for Geronimo 2.2 and it's catalog. Thoughts? >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> >>> >>> > >
