Comments inlined 2007/8/31, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On 31 Aug 07, at 9:58 AM 31 Aug 07, Raphaël Piéroni wrote: > > > Hi guys, > > > > Could it be some work done on integrating archetypes for maven 2.1 ? > > > > Archetype should stand completely on its own. Should have nothing to > do with 2.1.
Agree > What i am thinking about is to enhance the settings model to permit > > plugins to access some configuration when used without a project. > > > > Sure, that's fine but it should all be the same to the underlying > Archetype components. How the parameters get to Archetype is arbitrary. > > > Like the repositories defined in active profiles. > > Like plugin configuration like in project.build.plugins but only > > when called > > without a project. > > Like the list of archetype groups like for the plugins. > > > > So you're just asking for changes in Maven to make getting better > information to Archetype easier? Exactly > Is that premature (for maven 2.2+), or offtopic in this thread ? > > > > Some inlined comments follow. > > > > Regards > > > > Raphaël > > > > > > 2007/8/31, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > >> As I noted before, if the ITs are reasonably under control with a way > >> for people to make them and submit them then I will cut alphas > >> everyday. > >> > >> Brian is pretty much done. Is that true Brian on the Archetype front? > > > > > > The archetypeng code has moved to apache/maven/sandbox > > > > And you were supposed to figure out the JIRA workflow and I am > >> supposed to do the patch submission policy. > >> > >> After this we just warn people and we can cut releases on a weekly > >> basis. > >> > >> I don't think you can reasonably say what can be released when until > >> people actually start doing some work. Until then we pump out alphas, > >> my only two requirements were above to have some form of sanity for > >> people to makes tests for us. > >> > >> On 31 Aug 07, at 8:58 AM 31 Aug 07, Brett Porter wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I'm looking to do a few things towards getting a 2.1 alpha out, and > >>> wanted to look towards getting 2.1 itself a bit nearer. It seems > >>> like we have too many things scheduled at the moment for 2.1, so > >>> here are a few bits I've been looking at and was going to start > >>> running through. Would be great to hear others thoughts. > >>> > >>> 1) 2.1-alpha-1 issues > >>> > >>> I would like to cut this back to just the following and start > >>> working on them: > >>> * current known regressions > >>> * integration test failures > >>> and move the rest to 2.1.x as the 2.1 sorting bucket > >>> > >>> Any objections? > >>> > >>> 2) 2.1 JIRA > >>> > >>> This has about 270 issues + a large number currently unreviewed > >>> again for us all to go through. I think it needs to be cut down > >>> dramatically - I'd say ~100 issues should be the target here. > >>> > >>> I would map it out as 2.1-alpha-2 thru alpha-4: the highest > >>> priority / most addressable / related issues from 2.1.x and the > >>> current 2.1-alpha-1, + the new features from the wiki. I think this > >>> should be all we plan for 2.1 at this point, and move on to feature- > >>> complete betas then. We'll also include stuff that gets addressed > >>> through 2.0.x of course, and anything else that someone gets an > >>> itch to fix or a patch lands for. > >>> > >>> Any objections? If others think this is the right approach, I'm > >>> happy to go through and produce a list of what I think should > >>> remain. > >>> > >>> 3) New features > >>> > >>> I believe we should categorise these as: required for 2.1, optional > >>> for 2.1, and the rest as beyond 2.1. I think we should be > >>> particularly conservative to make sure a 2.1 release happens sooner. > >>> > >>> IMO, the required are: > >>> * decoupling maven-artifact (under way) > >>> * IT problems > >>> * shared build context (mostly done) > >>> * profile activators (mostly done) > >>> * repository mirroring (generally better ability to define > >>> repositories, even without the artifact resolution changes) > >>> * POM loading and building > >>> * Toolchains > >>> * Embedder > >>> * Plugin packs (depends on POM loading as currently defined) > >>> > >>> and the optional are: > >>> * java 5 annotations > >>> * conflict resolvers > >>> * artifact handling / artifact resolution spec > >>> * repository security > >>> * local repo separation > >>> * use StAX > >>> > >>> I'm also going over the rest of the wiki stuff to help finish up > >>> the things that still needed putting into the current layout and > >>> have a couple of other comments. I'll get back to that over the > >>> weekend. > >>> > >>> In my mind, I'd really like to see a realistic chance of 2.1 > >>> getting out this year, and planning to have 2 or 3 point releases > >>> next year, each spending time addressing the key issues people > >>> experience and those that get the most bang for our buck with the > >>> open JIRAs. > >>> > >>> Thoughts? Any volunteers? :) > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Brett > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Brett Porter - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Blog: http://www.devzuz.org/blogs/bporter/ > >>> > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Jason > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------- > >> Jason van Zyl > >> Founder and PMC Chair, Apache Maven > >> jason at sonatype dot com > >> ---------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder and PMC Chair, Apache Maven > jason at sonatype dot com > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Regards, Raphaël
