> Yup, I think we need ASF-wide artefact ids (within group > ids). I'd like to think the community and/or communities can > come to agreement on what the values are, and if that means > defaulting to what Maven/Ibiblio already have, then so be it. > Consistency is the key more than anything else.
Sounds like a sensible approach. > Hopefully we can have Maven bootstrap and plug-in testing in > Gump, to help identify such risk early on. We knew about the problem early on, but weren't prepared to make the core changes required to do this at the stage Maven was at. Sometimes to keep a project moving forward, you don't want the "bleeding edge". > I have concerns that I can't (easily) code what you asked for > (Gump plods through projects, and builds build.properties for > dependencies, it doesn't look ahead to be able to build a > workspace-wide list.) I'll keep an open mind on what you said > though, and see if I can figure out how. What I was thinking was that you would generate the build.properties from the list of gumped projects, rather than dependencies. If a project is not gumped, the dependency will have to come from a repository anyway, right? How do you intend to handle this case as projects come on board that use non-ASF libraries? > Please keep with us, and work with us to bootstrap Maven & > we'll work through these issues. [Again, changing the maven > 'gump' goal to produce <maven can probably wait until we > prove out what we are doing. Artefact's first...] No problem. Just say when. Cheers, Brett
