and It is very tough or nearly impossible to ask developers 40+ to do the workaround below.
-Dan On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Dan Tran <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
