+1 On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 20:11 -0400, Brian E. Fox wrote: > >The other problem with dropping it into the distribution is that when > >we find out there is a bug in it you can't simply specify a new > >version of the provider, you would have to go replace the provider and > > >all its deps, or make your own shaded JAR which would be a pain in the > > >ass. > > (see full thread here: > http://www.nabble.com/Wagon-changes-and-WebDAV-td15743343s177.html) > > So the above captures exactly the problem we are seeing now. James has > an issue with webdav that may require a fix. This is probably an > existing issue and is not core so it shouldn't hold up the 2.0.9 > release. The issue is that even if he finds and fixes it, there's no way > to upgrade the extension until we do 2.0.10. This seems like it could be > a bigger issue than what we've tried to solve, which is make > deploy:deploy-file slightly easier to use for one specific protocol. > > Reading back over the thread, there seemed to be general consensus that > this isn't the direction we wanted to go with the trunk, but that 2.0.x > wasn't as much of a concern. I think it should be still a concern given > the potential to really lock people in. Furthermore this has a big > potential to cause regressions because now we just forced everyone to > upgrade their webdav even if they didn't want to...and there's nothing > they can do about it. That's not cool and I vote we take this out before > minting 2.0.9. (I'm leaving it in for RC4 to allow time for discussion > and time for more testing of the RC) > > --Brian > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
