I assume you added the jipack repo to your pom <repositories>?
<repository>
<id>jitpack.io</id>
<url>https://jitpack.io</url>
</repository>
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Jim Lloyd <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm trying to configure to ts-tinkerpop
> <https://github.com/RedSeal-co/ts-tinkerpop> to build using 3.0.0-M9-rc3
> from jitpack.io and am not able to make it work. It could be that I'm
> simply bumping up against a limitation in my knowledge of maven. Jitpack
> claims that I should include a dependency like this:
>
> <dependency>
> <groupId>com.github.apache</groupId>
> <artifactId>incubator-tinkerpop</artifactId>
> <version>3.0.0.M9-incubating-rc3</version>
> </dependency>
>
> If that is the only tinkerpop related dependency, when I run maven I get
> errors like this one:
>
> [WARNING] The POM for
> org.apache.tinkerpop:gremlin-core:jar:3.0.0.M9-incubating-rc3 is missing,
> no dependency information available
>
> Examining the build log, I see this:
>
> Built artifact:
> com.github.apache.incubator-tinkerpop:gremlin-core:3.0.0.M9-incubating-rc3
>
> The groupId is listed three different ways above: `com.github.apache`,
> `org.apache.tinkerpop` and `com.github.apache.incubator-tinkerpop`. It
> looks to me that jitpack is not consistently mapping groupIds.
>
> Has anyone been able to use jitpack from maven to install tinkerpop jars?
>
> Thanks,
> Jim Lloyd
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 2:56 PM Matthias Broecheler <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Marko,
> >
> > yes, I realize that some of these are already fixed - that's why I
> provided
> > a list of Titan issues since corresponding TP3 tickets don't exist. I
> just
> > wanted to make an argument in favor of an M9 release.
> >
> > I disagree on 3). The issue here is that a vendor cannot access a
> described
> > feature of TP3. That's an error and not a nice to have.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Matthias
> >
> > On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:54 AM Marko Rodriguez <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Matthias,
> > >
> > > Many of the issues below were completed in April while we were in the
> M8
> > > hiatus. When we do the 3.0.0.M8-incubating-rc1 tag on Monday, please go
> > > over these again and see where Titan is not happy.
> > >
> > > Next, instead of giving us Titan tickets, please create and enumerate
> > > TinkerPop tickets so we are aware of them and can discuss on TinkerPop
> > > JIRA. Also, note that some tickets are blockers and some are not. For
> > > instance, (3) below is a "nice to have" but should not hold up
> releasing
> > > M9. Thus, only those issues that you find are blockers for Titan should
> > be
> > > considered as a "we are not happy with rcX."
> > >
> > > Thank you for taking the time on this,
> > > Marko.
> > >
> > > http://markorodriguez.com
> > >
> > >
> > > > 1) Leaving the property(key,value) default up to vendors (#627):
> > > > https://github.com/thinkaurelius/titan/issues/1060
> > > >
> > > > 2) Groovy test failures due to ID conversion:
> > > > https://github.com/thinkaurelius/titan/issues/1044
> > > >
> > > > 3) Inability to add custom profiling information:
> > > > https://github.com/thinkaurelius/titan/issues/1035
> > > >
> > > > 4) Vendor and TP3 strategies don't mix well:
> > > > https://github.com/thinkaurelius/titan/issues/1034
> > > >
> > > > 5) Errors in Performance test:
> > > > https://github.com/thinkaurelius/titan/issues/1007
> > > >
> > > > 6) Other groovy related failures:
> > > > https://github.com/thinkaurelius/titan/issues/1006
> > > >
> > > > 7) TP3 should not use graph related names in its schema (like "edge",
> > > > "element", etc) so that graph vendors can have the flexibility to
> > reserve
> > > > those for schema management purposes:
> > > > https://github.com/thinkaurelius/titan/issues/730
> > > > https://github.com/thinkaurelius/titan/issues/634
> > > >
> > > > 8) @BeforeClass semantics isn't fully honored by the Test suite:
> > > > https://github.com/thinkaurelius/titan/issues/1061
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Matthias
> > >
> > >
> >
>
