Kris Bravo wrote:
You didn't get my point.
My point was that it is irrelevant if POMs in the repository are minimal or
not.
But it is extremely important that information which is the main maven
repository is _not changing_!!!
I did get your overall point. But contrary to what you're now saying,
you went on this tangent, which I was addressing specifically:
"From this perspective it might be better to have a smaller but high
quality
repository which is growing then a big crappy repository containing
invalid POMs or "naked" POMs like that
(http://www.ibiblio.org/maven2/axis/axis/1.2/axis-1.2.pom):
project>
<modelVersion>4.0.0</modelVersion>
<groupId>axis</groupId>
<artifactId>axis</artifactId>
<version>1.2</version>
</project>
IMO at least project description and license should be present in all
POMs
in the repository. "
So if you're now saying that minimal POMs are okay, then yeah, I agree.
Kris
To make myself clear - I wanted to say that:
a) maven _central_ repository to be reliable should implement "WORM"
(Write Once Read Many times) principle from some moment in time.
It would be nice to know a date when it will happen to be sure that
poms in the central repository are not going to change even a bit.
IMO it this date should preceded 2.0 release but it is definitely too
early to make that move now as the velocity of "repository building"
will go down.
b) if WORM principle would be applied - then naked poms still may exist
in the central repository but it will be a big pity to have them threre
as they
never can be changed or improved. That's why it would be actually
better to get rid of them at some moment in time as the place for high
quality poms will remain open.
Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Najnowsze wiadomosci!!! >>> http://link.interia.pl/f18a0
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
