Well ask us to do something rather than blabber on and we shut up... I lost two managers and a developer which has chewed up all my time...
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:14:59 Stephen Connolly wrote: > IMHO > > I think a vote with the two positions clearly identified (perhaps with pros > and cons for both if the pair of ye can agree on the pros and cons). > (unless somebody else has a third position) > > -Stephen. > > On Jan 30, 2008 12:56 PM, Mark Hobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 30/01/2008, Mark Hobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't think that linking this level of artifact resolution > > > uncertainty to its source repository is a good idea. How version > > > ranges are resolved should be completely deterministic and independent > > > from where the artifact was actually downloaded from, otherwise we'll > > > end up with no end of build reproducibility problems. > > > > In addition, the local repository would be exempt from these rules. > > This would require manually deleting artifacts from the local repo to > > ensure that certain versions weren't picked up; a maintenance > > nightmare I'm sure you'll agree. > > > > How's best to proceed with resolving this issue? Would voting make > > sense, or should the PMC lay down the intended direction? I'm not > > sure whether this thread needs to get any longer.. :) > > > > Mark > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael McCallum Enterprise Engineer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
