I agree to fix the behavior like you propose Paul.
It will reduce probably a little bit current performances but if it solves
the case explained by Tamas, why not ...


On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Paul Gier <[email protected]> wrote:

> It seems that the copyFileIfModified implementation should be changed.
>  Since currently it only checks if the source timestamp is newer.  Maybe
> this should be changed to check for the timestamps not equal (and maybe size
> not equal also) instead of just a newer timestamp.  That would allow the
> optimization, but also handle the use case described in the jira issue.
>
>
> Tamás Cservenák wrote:
>
>> Well, how about a "feature branch" (short lived branches)? Or you modify
>> all
>> the modules to have different GAV upon branch? This is kinda nonsense to
>> me,
>> since I branch it to do some feature that I know will get back into trunk.
>> "Renaming" (changing GAVs of modules, maybe a LOT of them) is PITA in this
>> case, IMHO.
>>
>> But even then, I dislike very much the idea that Maven "optimizes" this,
>> and
>> does less then I tell it to do ;)
>>
>> ~t~
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Arnaud HERITIER <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  You have the same version in 2 branches in a project ?
>>> For me it is a bad practice
>>> Each branch has it own version to avoid those sort of conflict.
>>>
>>>
>>> Arnaud Héritier
>>> Software Factory Manager
>>> eXo platform - http://www.exoplatform.com
>>> ---
>>> http://www.aheritier.net
>>>
>>>
>>> 2009/12/7 Tamás Cservenák <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>  Hi there,
>>>>
>>>> this is mainly about this issue:
>>>> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4368
>>>>
>>>> It caused a lot of grief (and lost hours) to me, until I figured what
>>>> happens on me.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, no "optimization" like this should be done against local
>>>>
>>> repository.
>>>
>>>> Please undo it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> ~t~
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>

Reply via email to