So far I know CVS/SVN/StartTeam work well the current maven-scm-api interface. What else we have lelf?
MKS, Perforce, PVCS, ClearCase It would be nice to understand what obstacles the other providers are facing before we try to overhaul the interface. For Clearcase I think it is quite impossible to implement and satisfy everyone requirements. Clearcase has so of many options and practices that we may end up to have few Clearcase providers. For example, Luntbuid currently has 2 Clearcase providers (clearcase base, and clearcase UCM) those not even satisfy my clearcase practice. I am planning to implement a Clearcase provider that will be specific to my current practice ( and hope some one with the same practice can reuse it) Question: what is the scope of maven-scm-api? a full SCM implementation or just enough for build automation? I favor the later since It is quite possible that the current maven-scm-api can be implemented by all providers, of course there will be some twist here and there (like my case, asking for an 'issue' ) -Dan On 6/11/05, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 2005-06-12 at 14:25 +1000, Brett Porter wrote: > > Is it possible we could give the API a once over before we try to grow it? > > > > Mike Esler previously talked about changing the API to be more use case > > driven: > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-scm-dev/200505.mbox/[EMAIL > > PROTECTED] > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-scm-dev/200505.mbox/[EMAIL > > PROTECTED] > > (read the threads, in particular Jason's reply to the latter about > > dropping the Manager) > > > > I think we could fairly quickly come up with a set of ideal interfaces, > > then start talking about how to add things like this. We don't need to > > do a big change to the API immediately, but start pushing it in the > > direction of the final design. > > > > Thoughts? > > One thing for sure is the provider interface needs to have the methods > that the manager has right now and the manager can be pushed off to > another build. > > Reforming the API with folks now on the list with experience outside our > predominantly CVS/SVN view would definitely be good along with the > suggestion of Mike. > > > - Brett > > > > Dan Tran (JIRA) wrote: > > > > > [ http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-38?page=comments#action_41084 ] > > > > > >Dan Tran commented on SCM-38: > > >----------------------------- > > > > > >I would like to go forward with this enhancement by adding > > >'issue' argument to add/checkin/lock command interfaces. > > > > > >Please give some sort of blessing before I start the changes to > > >all provider implementations. > > > > > >Note that, only StarTeam and (future) Clearcase would do something > > >with this 'issue', other providers ignore it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>Ability to assign an issue tracking to add, lock, and checkin > > >>------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > > >> Key: SCM-38 > > >> URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-38 > > >> Project: Maven SCM > > >> Type: New Feature > > >> Components: maven-scm-api > > >> Versions: 1.0-alpha-1 > > >> Environment: xp, maven 1.0.2 > > >> Reporter: Dan Tran > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >>Clearcase and starteam (if configured) insist to have an associate issue > > >>id ( ie activity in clearcase, CR/activity/task in starteam) during lock, > > >>add, and checkin commands. > > >>Suggest to add "issue" argument for those commands in maven-scm-api > > >>interface > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > jvz. > > Jason van Zyl > jason at maven.org > http://maven.apache.org > > believe nothing, no matter where you read it, > or who has said it, > not even if i have said it, > unless it agrees with your own reason > and your own common sense. > > -- Buddha > >
