On 1 Sep 07, at 7:04 PM 1 Sep 07, Brett Porter wrote:
On 02/09/2007, at 1:33 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
For this proposal I think it boils down to the ephemeral versus
non. I think there is an easier way to do what is proposed.
Are you talking about my proposal, or the settings zeroconf stuff?
I'm talking about your proposal being too complicated. An option to
use a separate local repository goes a long way and with a cached
remote using Proximity this is not loathsome. I don't think using a
shared local repository is a particularly bright idea. But creating
any layered structure should be reduced for the need at hand. It
seems to be people want to just separate between what their projects
produce and what is fixed. Trying to break things down into the
repository they came from isn't going to help anyone. Something like
telling Maven to cache by a groupId is one approach. Could be a
project within an organization or an entire organization and this is
probably only in the context of a build server. The complexity added
for developers being able to shared a single local repository is just
not worth it. To go from one place for the local cache to N where N
is the number of repositories would be overwhelmingly confusing.
If it's for my proposal... let's hear the easier way, please.
- Brett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
