On 21/11/2012, at 11:50 AM, Benson Margulies <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Brett Porter <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 21/11/2012, at 7:37 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I think I found at least one cause of too many forked lifecycles within >>> site. >>> >>> Basically the aggregators are being run for every module in the >>> reactor, if I understand things correctly they should only be run for >>> "pom" >>> modules. >>> >>> I have a very simple patch at >>> https://github.com/krosenvold/maven-shared/commit/9536ef08946d4e0aa6d3d0533642bb5640da4a11 >>> I was hoping someone who actually understands this stuff would comment >>> on this patch ;) >>> >>> I will make some tests if the patch looks good ;) >> >> I'm not sure this covers every use case. For example, what about a project >> that has submodules that are POMs for hierarchy? While uncommon, I think it >> is also possible to build an artifact at the root that isn't a POM. IIRC >> there has been a method introduced to determine if the current project is >> the execution root - perhaps that's what's needed here. > > I'm not sure I follow. This will go ahead and for any pom with > packaging 'pom'. Is your concern that it will still run too many, as > it will aggregate at each intermediate level? My inclination is to > think that aggregation should only happen at the root, not at > intermediates, but I could see room for disagreement. Right, I think that's what I was saying. For example, wouldn't this aggregate again here? http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/archiva/trunk/archiva-modules/archiva-web/pom.xml - Brett -- Brett Porter [email protected] http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter http://twitter.com/brettporter
