Hello Stefan, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > On Wed, 08 Nov 2006, Antoine Levy-Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I would more agree with Xavier, and believe that if the metadata in >> the POM or ivy.xml is wrong, there should be a new release with a >> new version number. >> > > I'll be the first one to admit that I have almost no experience with a > Maven repo and absolutely no experience with Ivy's repo. But I have > seen people add POMs to Maven repos for projects they are not involved > with. > > This is a valid point. Ideally POMs should only come from the project releasing the binaries, not from its users.
> If somebody adds a POM for release 1.0 of a project X I am the release > manager of, do you really expect me to release 1.0.1 because this > other guy made a mistake in the POM which probably was created without > even consulting with me? I myself sent an upload request for jsch with initially a wrong groupId of jsch and not com.jcraft. This was fixed later by Carlos Sanchez. Users of libraries who need Maven uploads should contact the library provider and make them create their own POMs. ;-) So I have to contact jcraft concerning POMs, I did not do it until now. Realistically, your release manager will not want to make a 1.0.1 release because of the wrong POM. But projects which provide their own POMs should consider the POMs as part of their sources. This means that if people have issues with the Ant POMs after 1.7.0 is out, IMHO they should create bug reports in bugzilla with a patch attached, and wait until the next release. If POMs have their own revisions on top of the version of the artifacts, then it would be OK to fix them. Regards, Antoine
