Brett, On Sun, 2004-09-05 at 21:03, Brett Porter wrote:
> 1) branching/versioning should be on a per-plugin level, if needed > 2) changes should be backwards compatible at this stage, indicating that a > branch may not be needed. Hmm, I think I wasn't clear in my previous message: the reason I'd like to create a branch is that I can work in the issue without messing with the main branch (in this case, the 1_0_BRANCH) while all the changes are not ready. Once I finish the changes, I would merge them back to the main branch (and that 'private' branch could be forgotten). If I don't create a branch, I need to either work in small changes at time or work in a lot of changes without committing them back to CVS. > > IIRC this is the change to a new .final.name property. I think if you put some Yes, that's it. > code in to set it, and if not set get it from the old property name, it should > play nicely. I did similarly in the artifact/deploy plugin. I don't understand what you mean by 'if not set get it from ...'... Anyway, the fix shouldn't cause backaward compatibility issues, although the new final names might change in some cases (for instance, the WAR file created at target doesn't have the currentVersion on its name, which is inconsistent with the other plugins and even the WAR that is installed/deployed). -- Felipe --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
