On 8/21/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jason van Zyl ha scritto: > > I'm not sure this is something we want to encourage before the patches > > are applied. Keeping the sources and javadoc JARs together seems like > > a good thing to do. The sources and javadocs located in different > > locations doesn't seem to make much sense to me and there's no real > > explanation within the report. > > > I see there are 4 open bugs depending on this feature request: > > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASSEMBLY-231 > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MSOURCES-20 > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MJAVADOC-142 > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MDEPLOY-61
These bugs are just extensions of the same feature request, effectively these all constitute a single feature: "moving secondary artifacts to an alternate repository." This seems to me to be separation for the sake of separation, with no existing use-case. I'm going to have to side with Jason in this one. This does not seem only related to javadocs and source jars. What kind > of "real explanation" do you expect for a similar feature request? > > IMHO adding a feature does not mean "encouraging" its usage: it simply > means make it possible (you know there are always corner cases when > using maven). > > What problems do you see in applying this patch apart the encouragement > issue? > > Stefano > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Eric Redmond http://blog.propellors.net
