On 9/11/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 11 Sep 07, at 9:25 AM 11 Sep 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>
> > i'd like to see 2.0.8 released with the old artifact code and then
> > 2.0.9 with the new one so we have a clear checkpoint to easily know if
> > there are problems with the new approach
> >
>
> How is 2.0.7 not a clear point?
I just would like to reduce the changes between releases. We release
what is now as 2.0.8 and then prepare artifact 3.0 for 2.0.9
if something breaks between 2.0.8 and 2.0.9 we know clearly it was the
artifact changes and it's just a matter of downgrading to 2.0.8. I
think it'd make our life easier
>
> And if a few of us are planning to do the work what is the objection?
no objection, just my 2 cents
>
> If there are technical problems or things don't work then I don't
> want to do it at all, but it's looking like it will work with the
> minimal amount of testing that has happened.
>
> > On 9/10/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> How do people feel about trying to use maven-artifact in 2.0.x?
> >>
> >> The code has not changed, and backward compatibility will be
> >> maintained, and from Mark's trials it appears to work. Is this
> >> correct Mark? The ITs run using the decoupled version?
> >>
> >> The question is what are the criteria to decide if this is viable?
> >>
> >> 1) All plugins using the old artifacts must work (we need those smoke
> >> test projects in plugins)
> >> 2) Code must be binary compatible (easy to check with clirr)
> >>
> >> The only thing I can see as a problem right now is if people directly
> >> depend on maven-artifact-manager (would you guess that's the api?)
> >> then without a modification for the request of that would cause a
> >> problem. This needs to be fixed in 2.1 as well and I was just going
> >> to flip any requests for
> >>
> >> org.apache.maven:maven-artifact
> >> org.apache.maven:maven-artifact-manager
> >> org.apache.maven:maven-repository-metadata
> >>
> >> into a request for
> >>
> >> org.apache.maven.artifact:maven-artifact
> >>
> >> which containers everything required.
> >>
> >> A little artifact filter would do the trick.
> >>
> >> We are going to have to maintain backward compat in maven-artifact
> >> for a long time anyway because of plugins using it directly. We are
> >> going to have to support 2.0.x for a long time and having to maintain
> >> divergent copies of maven-artifact will very much suck ass. Maven
> >> 2.0.x is going to be used for a long time, and that's fine, but the
> >> easier to maintain the better.
> >>
> >> 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]
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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]
> >
>
> 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]
>
>
--
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]
