Stephane Bailliez wrote:
Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote:
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.
This would be unacceptable in most corporate environments.
If you can afford to depend on an online repository which is unreliable
and uncontrolled as well as the release schedule of an opensource (or
commercial) component which is unreliable and uncontrolled and hold on,
that's fine, but that's far from the norm.
When using M2 I ended with a private repo with custom metadata to strip
out things that weren't needed. I will inevitably do the same with Ivy.
I may not cache artifacts, but I will certainly tune the dependency
information, because someone's belief on what the dependencies are may
not match mine. Go import hibernate if you want an example of what I had
to deal with. They discard one team's metadata, then add their own. This
is what it is like out there.
http://www.ibiblio.org/maven2/org/hibernate/hibernate/3.1rc2/hibernate-3.1rc2.pom
Of course, if we have standard confs with standard semantics (e.g
master==artifact with no dependencies) then
I dont need to exclude things, just add others,
Just like bugs, you may perfectly end up in a situation where you need
to patch (or workaround) your opensource/commercial component (even
though the patch is submitted and applied) and run with it until the
next release and/or use a custom snapshot. It does not have to be the
norm (and I'm the very first one to fight against such practice which
consist of patching everything just because it's opensource and you can
do it) but this type of thing _will_ happen.
mmm. Open source is the right to edit the code. It is not a duty.
Especially when we are talking about a piece of text.
-- stephane
