On 7/5/06, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 4, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> On 5/07/2006 10:54 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>> I think the process is somewhat broken and that the maven team is
>> being far too strict about changing broken poms that were in fact
>> installed by the maven team, not supplied by the project.
>> (xmlbeans is the case in point for me). I also think that
>> traceability of where poms came from and under what auspices they
>> are added to either the repository svn tree or ibiblio is sorely
>> lacking. (again xmlbeans being my sore spot). We are in the
>> situation where a pom appeared from an unknown source, is wrong,
>> did not come from the project, and can't be updated. Much as I
>> like maven it's hard for me to see how this is going to lead to
>> success.
>
> David,
>
> I thought we'd agreed to fix that up? I can't find the issue on it
> other than http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MEV-406 which is not the
> one I recall (that one is about stax which is a whole other problem
> beyond the scope of Maven too).
that's the one. The xmlbeans pom does not have the required stax-api
dependency listed in it. As that issue notes, Carlos declined to
change the existing pom. IIUC Carlos said I needed to get xmlbeans
to produce the pom, which I am currently working on, see http://
issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XMLBEANS-277
The problem is that people want a stable repo, you just have to check
this thread. If I could go back in time I wouldn't do the
autogeneration of poms.
Another issue I've already seen several times is patches to fix poms
that at the end where not the *right* fix. For instance people saying
that dependency A is missing, so it's added. Then somebody else uses
it differently and then dependency B is missing. I don't want that to
happen again.
The xmlbeans team have agreed in principle to cooperate but have not
in fact yet reviewed my first draft for things like correct urls. I
originally planned to produce a complete set of poms for their 3 jars
and 3 releases but am not sure how to test one of them. To me it
seems like its turned into an enormous amount of work to fix a really
obvious problem. One of the most frustrating things for me is that
there is no way to find out where the existing wrong poms came from.
Brett has a good suggestion about adding traceability to uploaded
poms. But I can tell you that if the pom only has group, artifact and
version is coming from the early times of the repo autogenerated it
from a missing pom in the m1 repo.
Things from Apache, Codehaus, Objectweb,... come synced from their repos.
Second most frustrating was that the MEV instructions turned out to
be 100% inaccurate, so following them to the letter was a complete
waste of time.
Sorry about that, now they are changed, not sure if they have been deployed yet.
There was another problem with the maven xmlbeans plugin that Kris
Bravo fixed immediately.
thanks
david jencks
>
> - Brett
>
> --
> Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Apache Maven - http://maven.apache.org/
> Better Builds with Maven - http://library.mergere.com/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
