oh mine I am so glad accidentally read this. My team doing this so offen, by doing a quick branch an merge the change back how ever sometimes, it would some time to start the merge.
so there are 2 solutions: - change the version or - each branch has its own local. This is very annoying and confusing. And I am sure it may be chaotic for some teams when starting using mvn 2.2 or 3.0 where the change happens Please revert it, or make it an option on command line ( like -Ol etc ) Thanks 2009/12/9 Tamás Cservenák <[email protected]>: > Hi there, > > Just to refresh memories, there is an interesting debate going on: > > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4368 > > BTW, now I do realize that the issue I thought to be my problem, and is used > to exchange comments are not the same.... > But the problem is still a problem. > > Thanks, > ~t~ > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Arnaud HERITIER <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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] >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
