Re: [daemon] Deploying maven 2 pom for release 1.0.1
I think commons is required or the group would get too big. Also a groupId per PMC sounds the best approach. On 3/3/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another one: > > org.apache.jakarta > > no commons. > > With my different hats/mental viewpoints: > > * Foundation: We need to have an organizing, pmc based structure. > * Jakarta: We need a single top grouping for Jakarta > * Commons: We need a grouping for Commons > * Jakarta: I want to merge Commons and Jakarta, so can drop one > * Foundation: commons.apache.org means painful arguments, prefer jakarta. > > These multiple inputs are why I'm trying to get this resolved right > now, regardless of short-term pain. > > Hen > > On 3/3/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd say o.a.j.c, but really it doesn't matter. Pick one and use it > > consistently. > > > > If you use o.a.c, you will have to share with anything else "commons" at > > Apache. Same deal that has been traded off for the Java package before. > > It's really not a big deal. > > > > - Brett > > > > Dennis Lundberg wrote: > > > Henri Yandell wrote: > > >> On 2/27/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> Alex Karasulu wrote: > > Hiya, > > > > The directory project depends on commons-daemon 1.0.1 and we had to > > update the maven2 repo with a temporary pom.xml to allow our recent > > release to go through. I wanted to contact this list and make sure the > > deployed pom is correct. It is located here: > > > > http://test.maven.codehaus.org/maven2/commons-daemon/commons-daemon/1.0.1/ > > > > > > Also I'd like to make sure we can get m2 deployments working for > > commons > > daemon from now on. I'm a committer but I wanted to ask if it's ok to > > add a m2 pom alongside the m1 project.xml so we can update the m2 > > repository. > > >>> If we start to add m2 poms to SVN I do think we should use the Maven 2 > > >>> way to declare groupId, like this: > > >>> > > >>>org.apache.commons > > >>>commons-daemon > > >> > > >> I think it should be: org.apache.jakarta.commons > > >> > > >> It's not the package, just a grouping, so let's get it right at the > > >> ASF this time. > > > > > > This page [1] says to use the package, but I have taken this question > > > over to dev@maven.apache.org [2] to get this clarified. Will post the > > > result back here later. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-naming-conventions.html > > > [2]http://www.nabble.com/What-M2-groupId-should-we-use-in-Jakarta-commons--t1220408.html > > > > > > > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- I could give you my word as a Spaniard. No good. I've known too many Spaniards. -- The Princess Bride - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [all] m2 groupId Was: [daemon] Deploying maven 2 pom for release 1.0.1
We don't force the package name as groupId, but the "expected" package name. eg. junit is in package junit but we'd put it in org.junit. After that is up to the organization (apache) to decide how org.apache is splitted. Now from the apache side ;) sounds like a groupId per PMC is a good idea, and if at its moment it was decided to go for org.apache.commons that's a good groupId. On 3/3/06, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/3/06, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Now answering on the new thread with less spelling errors :) > > > > Henri Yandell wrote on Friday, March 03, 2006 6:40 AM: > > > > > Re-subjecting this - bit hidden under the old subject. > > > > > > On 3/2/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> On 2/27/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> If we start to add m2 poms to SVN I do think we should use the > > >>> Maven 2 way to declare groupId, like this: > > >>> > > >>>org.apache.commons > > >>>commons-daemon > > >> > > >> I think it should be: org.apache.jakarta.commons > > >> > > >> It's not the package (afaik), just a grouping, so let's get it right > > >> at the ASF this time. > > > > > > Suggesting on repository@ that we lock things down so that PMCs have > > > group space into which only they can write etc etc - either through > > > SVN or unix groups. > > > > It is the recommended way to chose the package name as group id. If > > Jakartea wouldn't have an own mirror into the repo at ibiblio, your upload > > would been refused by the Maven team. And IMHO it is a good practice, > > because the user must not guess about an arbitrary chosen groupId by the > > developers of a package. > > > > +1 - I think Nicola Ken used to have a sig that said something like > "verba volant, scripta manent" (words fly, but what is written > remains). I see projects the same way - the package name is durable > and a property of the codebase, so should be (at least the root of) > its name in the repo. Jakarta is an org entity that may - sob, groan, > choke - go away some day. That's why it was wise IMHO not to insert > "jakarta" into the package names for o.a.c packages. The main point, > though, is that the package name identifies the code in the > conventional java namespace and I see no reason not to stick with > that. > > Phil > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- I could give you my word as a Spaniard. No good. I've known too many Spaniards. -- The Princess Bride - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [all] m2 groupId Was: [daemon] Deploying maven 2 pom for release 1.0.1
On 3/3/06, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now answering on the new thread with less spelling errors :) > > Henri Yandell wrote on Friday, March 03, 2006 6:40 AM: > > > Re-subjecting this - bit hidden under the old subject. > > > > On 3/2/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 2/27/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> If we start to add m2 poms to SVN I do think we should use the > >>> Maven 2 way to declare groupId, like this: > >>> > >>>org.apache.commons > >>>commons-daemon > >> > >> I think it should be: org.apache.jakarta.commons > >> > >> It's not the package (afaik), just a grouping, so let's get it right > >> at the ASF this time. > > > > Suggesting on repository@ that we lock things down so that PMCs have > > group space into which only they can write etc etc - either through > > SVN or unix groups. > > It is the recommended way to chose the package name as group id. If Jakartea > wouldn't have an own mirror into the repo at ibiblio, your upload would been > refused by the Maven team. And IMHO it is a good practice, because the user > must not guess about an arbitrary chosen groupId by the developers of a > package. > +1 - I think Nicola Ken used to have a sig that said something like "verba volant, scripta manent" (words fly, but what is written remains). I see projects the same way - the package name is durable and a property of the codebase, so should be (at least the root of) its name in the repo. Jakarta is an org entity that may - sob, groan, choke - go away some day. That's why it was wise IMHO not to insert "jakarta" into the package names for o.a.c packages. The main point, though, is that the package name identifies the code in the conventional java namespace and I see no reason not to stick with that. Phil - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [daemon] Deploying maven 2 pom for release 1.0.1
Another one: org.apache.jakarta no commons. With my different hats/mental viewpoints: * Foundation: We need to have an organizing, pmc based structure. * Jakarta: We need a single top grouping for Jakarta * Commons: We need a grouping for Commons * Jakarta: I want to merge Commons and Jakarta, so can drop one * Foundation: commons.apache.org means painful arguments, prefer jakarta. These multiple inputs are why I'm trying to get this resolved right now, regardless of short-term pain. Hen On 3/3/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd say o.a.j.c, but really it doesn't matter. Pick one and use it > consistently. > > If you use o.a.c, you will have to share with anything else "commons" at > Apache. Same deal that has been traded off for the Java package before. > It's really not a big deal. > > - Brett > > Dennis Lundberg wrote: > > Henri Yandell wrote: > >> On 2/27/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Alex Karasulu wrote: > Hiya, > > The directory project depends on commons-daemon 1.0.1 and we had to > update the maven2 repo with a temporary pom.xml to allow our recent > release to go through. I wanted to contact this list and make sure the > deployed pom is correct. It is located here: > > http://test.maven.codehaus.org/maven2/commons-daemon/commons-daemon/1.0.1/ > > > Also I'd like to make sure we can get m2 deployments working for > commons > daemon from now on. I'm a committer but I wanted to ask if it's ok to > add a m2 pom alongside the m1 project.xml so we can update the m2 > repository. > >>> If we start to add m2 poms to SVN I do think we should use the Maven 2 > >>> way to declare groupId, like this: > >>> > >>>org.apache.commons > >>>commons-daemon > >> > >> I think it should be: org.apache.jakarta.commons > >> > >> It's not the package, just a grouping, so let's get it right at the > >> ASF this time. > > > > This page [1] says to use the package, but I have taken this question > > over to dev@maven.apache.org [2] to get this clarified. Will post the > > result back here later. > > > > > > > > > > [1]http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-naming-conventions.html > > [2]http://www.nabble.com/What-M2-groupId-should-we-use-in-Jakarta-commons--t1220408.html > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [daemon] Deploying maven 2 pom for release 1.0.1
I'd say o.a.j.c, but really it doesn't matter. Pick one and use it consistently. If you use o.a.c, you will have to share with anything else "commons" at Apache. Same deal that has been traded off for the Java package before. It's really not a big deal. - Brett Dennis Lundberg wrote: > Henri Yandell wrote: >> On 2/27/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Alex Karasulu wrote: Hiya, The directory project depends on commons-daemon 1.0.1 and we had to update the maven2 repo with a temporary pom.xml to allow our recent release to go through. I wanted to contact this list and make sure the deployed pom is correct. It is located here: http://test.maven.codehaus.org/maven2/commons-daemon/commons-daemon/1.0.1/ Also I'd like to make sure we can get m2 deployments working for commons daemon from now on. I'm a committer but I wanted to ask if it's ok to add a m2 pom alongside the m1 project.xml so we can update the m2 repository. >>> If we start to add m2 poms to SVN I do think we should use the Maven 2 >>> way to declare groupId, like this: >>> >>>org.apache.commons >>>commons-daemon >> >> I think it should be: org.apache.jakarta.commons >> >> It's not the package, just a grouping, so let's get it right at the >> ASF this time. > > This page [1] says to use the package, but I have taken this question > over to dev@maven.apache.org [2] to get this clarified. Will post the > result back here later. > > > > > [1]http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-naming-conventions.html > [2]http://www.nabble.com/What-M2-groupId-should-we-use-in-Jakarta-commons--t1220408.html > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [daemon] Deploying maven 2 pom for release 1.0.1
Henri Yandell wrote: On 2/27/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Alex Karasulu wrote: Hiya, The directory project depends on commons-daemon 1.0.1 and we had to update the maven2 repo with a temporary pom.xml to allow our recent release to go through. I wanted to contact this list and make sure the deployed pom is correct. It is located here: http://test.maven.codehaus.org/maven2/commons-daemon/commons-daemon/1.0.1/ Also I'd like to make sure we can get m2 deployments working for commons daemon from now on. I'm a committer but I wanted to ask if it's ok to add a m2 pom alongside the m1 project.xml so we can update the m2 repository. If we start to add m2 poms to SVN I do think we should use the Maven 2 way to declare groupId, like this: org.apache.commons commons-daemon I think it should be: org.apache.jakarta.commons It's not the package, just a grouping, so let's get it right at the ASF this time. This page [1] says to use the package, but I have taken this question over to dev@maven.apache.org [2] to get this clarified. Will post the result back here later. [1]http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-naming-conventions.html [2]http://www.nabble.com/What-M2-groupId-should-we-use-in-Jakarta-commons--t1220408.html -- Dennis Lundberg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [daemon] Deploying maven 2 pom for release 1.0.1
Jörg Schaible wrote: Hi Henri, Henri Yandell wrote on Friday, March 03, 2006 5:33 AM: On 2/27/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Alex Karasulu wrote: Hiya, The directory project depends on commons-daemon 1.0.1 and we had to update the maven2 repo with a temporary pom.xml to allow our recent release to go through. I wanted to contact this list and make sure the deployed pom is correct. It is located here: http://test.maven.codehaus.org/maven2/commons-daemon/commons-d aemon/1.0.1/ Also I'd like to make sure we can get m2 deployments working for commons daemon from now on. I'm a committer but I wanted to ask if it's ok to add a m2 pom alongside the m1 project.xml so we can update the m2 repository. If we start to add m2 poms to SVN I do think we should use the Maven 2 way to declare groupId, like this: org.apache.commons commons-daemon I think it should be: org.apache.jakarta.commons It's not the package, just a grouping, so let's get it right at the ASF this time. [I'm suggesting stuff on [EMAIL PROTECTED] that would force us to do this btw :), we wouldn't have write permissions to org.apache.commons] It is the recommended way to chose the package name as group id. If Jakartea wouldn't have an own mirror into the repo at ibiblio, your upload would been refiesed by the Maven team. And IMHO it is a good practice, because the user must not guess about an arbitrary chosen groupId by the developers of a package. Yes it is the recommended practice. In fact I think they will begin imposing this for jars at ibiblio. I just finished maven2'ifying the directory build and this was one of the *strong* recommendations made by them. Perhaps they can chime in. Alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [daemon] Deploying maven 2 pom for release 1.0.1
Henri Yandell wrote: On 2/27/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Alex Karasulu wrote: Hiya, The directory project depends on commons-daemon 1.0.1 and we had to update the maven2 repo with a temporary pom.xml to allow our recent release to go through. I wanted to contact this list and make sure the deployed pom is correct. It is located here: http://test.maven.codehaus.org/maven2/commons-daemon/commons-daemon/1.0.1/ Also I'd like to make sure we can get m2 deployments working for commons daemon from now on. I'm a committer but I wanted to ask if it's ok to add a m2 pom alongside the m1 project.xml so we can update the m2 repository. If we start to add m2 poms to SVN I do think we should use the Maven 2 way to declare groupId, like this: org.apache.commons commons-daemon I think it should be: org.apache.jakarta.commons It's not the package, just a grouping, so let's get it right at the ASF this time. [I'm suggesting stuff on [EMAIL PROTECTED] that would force us to do this btw :), we wouldn't have write permissions to org.apache.commons] I thought that was the best way to go. I should have spoken up. But I agree this is best to do from the onset. Alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [all] m2 groupId Was: [daemon] Deploying maven 2 pom for release 1.0.1
Now answering on the new thread with less spelling errors :) Henri Yandell wrote on Friday, March 03, 2006 6:40 AM: > Re-subjecting this - bit hidden under the old subject. > > On 3/2/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 2/27/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> If we start to add m2 poms to SVN I do think we should use the >>> Maven 2 way to declare groupId, like this: >>> >>>org.apache.commons >>>commons-daemon >> >> I think it should be: org.apache.jakarta.commons >> >> It's not the package (afaik), just a grouping, so let's get it right >> at the ASF this time. > > Suggesting on repository@ that we lock things down so that PMCs have > group space into which only they can write etc etc - either through > SVN or unix groups. It is the recommended way to chose the package name as group id. If Jakartea wouldn't have an own mirror into the repo at ibiblio, your upload would been refused by the Maven team. And IMHO it is a good practice, because the user must not guess about an arbitrary chosen groupId by the developers of a package. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [daemon] Deploying maven 2 pom for release 1.0.1
Hi Henri, Henri Yandell wrote on Friday, March 03, 2006 5:33 AM: > On 2/27/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Alex Karasulu wrote: >>> Hiya, >>> >>> The directory project depends on commons-daemon 1.0.1 and we had to >>> update the maven2 repo with a temporary pom.xml to allow our recent >>> release to go through. I wanted to contact this list and make sure >>> the deployed pom is correct. It is located here: >>> >>> > http://test.maven.codehaus.org/maven2/commons-daemon/commons-d > aemon/1.0.1/ >>> >>> Also I'd like to make sure we can get m2 deployments working for >>> commons daemon from now on. I'm a committer but I wanted to ask if >>> it's ok to add a m2 pom alongside the m1 project.xml so we can >>> update the m2 repository. >> >> If we start to add m2 poms to SVN I do think we should use the Maven >> 2 way to declare groupId, like this: >> >>org.apache.commons >>commons-daemon > > I think it should be: org.apache.jakarta.commons > > It's not the package, just a grouping, so let's get it right at the > ASF this time. > > [I'm suggesting stuff on [EMAIL PROTECTED] that would force us to do > this btw :), we wouldn't have write permissions to org.apache.commons] It is the recommended way to chose the package name as group id. If Jakartea wouldn't have an own mirror into the repo at ibiblio, your upload would been refiesed by the Maven team. And IMHO it is a good practice, because the user must not guess about an arbitrary chosen groupId by the developers of a package. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[all] m2 groupId Was: [daemon] Deploying maven 2 pom for release 1.0.1
Re-subjecting this - bit hidden under the old subject. On 3/2/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/27/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If we start to add m2 poms to SVN I do think we should use the Maven 2 > > way to declare groupId, like this: > > > >org.apache.commons > >commons-daemon > > I think it should be: org.apache.jakarta.commons > > It's not the package (afaik), just a grouping, so let's get it right at the > ASF this time. Suggesting on repository@ that we lock things down so that PMCs have group space into which only they can write etc etc - either through SVN or unix groups. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [daemon] Deploying maven 2 pom for release 1.0.1
On 2/27/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alex Karasulu wrote: > > Hiya, > > > > The directory project depends on commons-daemon 1.0.1 and we had to > > update the maven2 repo with a temporary pom.xml to allow our recent > > release to go through. I wanted to contact this list and make sure the > > deployed pom is correct. It is located here: > > > > http://test.maven.codehaus.org/maven2/commons-daemon/commons-daemon/1.0.1/ > > > > Also I'd like to make sure we can get m2 deployments working for commons > > daemon from now on. I'm a committer but I wanted to ask if it's ok to > > add a m2 pom alongside the m1 project.xml so we can update the m2 > > repository. > > If we start to add m2 poms to SVN I do think we should use the Maven 2 > way to declare groupId, like this: > >org.apache.commons >commons-daemon I think it should be: org.apache.jakarta.commons It's not the package, just a grouping, so let's get it right at the ASF this time. [I'm suggesting stuff on [EMAIL PROTECTED] that would force us to do this btw :), we wouldn't have write permissions to org.apache.commons] Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [daemon] Deploying maven 2 pom for release 1.0.1
You can change that also in the m1 poms. If there're already releases we can relocate the to the new groupid, so people using the old one will get a warning althoug still working. On 2/27/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alex Karasulu wrote: > > Hiya, > > > > The directory project depends on commons-daemon 1.0.1 and we had to > > update the maven2 repo with a temporary pom.xml to allow our recent > > release to go through. I wanted to contact this list and make sure the > > deployed pom is correct. It is located here: > > > > http://test.maven.codehaus.org/maven2/commons-daemon/commons-daemon/1.0.1/ > > > > Also I'd like to make sure we can get m2 deployments working for commons > > daemon from now on. I'm a committer but I wanted to ask if it's ok to > > add a m2 pom alongside the m1 project.xml so we can update the m2 > > repository. > > If we start to add m2 poms to SVN I do think we should use the Maven 2 > way to declare groupId, like this: > >org.apache.commons >commons-daemon > > -- > Dennis Lundberg > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- I could give you my word as a Spaniard. No good. I've known too many Spaniards. -- The Princess Bride - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [daemon] Deploying maven 2 pom for release 1.0.1
Dennis Lundberg wrote: Alex Karasulu wrote: Hiya, The directory project depends on commons-daemon 1.0.1 and we had to update the maven2 repo with a temporary pom.xml to allow our recent release to go through. I wanted to contact this list and make sure the deployed pom is correct. It is located here: http://test.maven.codehaus.org/maven2/commons-daemon/commons-daemon/1.0.1/ Also I'd like to make sure we can get m2 deployments working for commons daemon from now on. I'm a committer but I wanted to ask if it's ok to add a m2 pom alongside the m1 project.xml so we can update the m2 repository. If we start to add m2 poms to SVN I do think we should use the Maven 2 way to declare groupId, like this: org.apache.commons commons-daemon Yep makes sense. Alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [daemon] Deploying maven 2 pom for release 1.0.1
Alex Karasulu wrote: Hiya, The directory project depends on commons-daemon 1.0.1 and we had to update the maven2 repo with a temporary pom.xml to allow our recent release to go through. I wanted to contact this list and make sure the deployed pom is correct. It is located here: http://test.maven.codehaus.org/maven2/commons-daemon/commons-daemon/1.0.1/ Also I'd like to make sure we can get m2 deployments working for commons daemon from now on. I'm a committer but I wanted to ask if it's ok to add a m2 pom alongside the m1 project.xml so we can update the m2 repository. If we start to add m2 poms to SVN I do think we should use the Maven 2 way to declare groupId, like this: org.apache.commons commons-daemon -- Dennis Lundberg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [daemon] Deploying maven 2 pom for release 1.0.1
Alex Karasulu wrote: Hiya, The directory project depends on commons-daemon 1.0.1 and we had to update the maven2 repo with a temporary pom.xml to allow our recent release to go through. I wanted to contact this list and make sure the deployed pom is correct. It is located here: http://test.maven.codehaus.org/maven2/commons-daemon/commons-daemon/1.0.1/ That looks ok for me. Cheers Jean-Frederic Also I'd like to make sure we can get m2 deployments working for commons daemon from now on. I'm a committer but I wanted to ask if it's ok to add a m2 pom alongside the m1 project.xml so we can update the m2 repository. Thanks, Alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[daemon] Deploying maven 2 pom for release 1.0.1
Hiya, The directory project depends on commons-daemon 1.0.1 and we had to update the maven2 repo with a temporary pom.xml to allow our recent release to go through. I wanted to contact this list and make sure the deployed pom is correct. It is located here: http://test.maven.codehaus.org/maven2/commons-daemon/commons-daemon/1.0.1/ Also I'd like to make sure we can get m2 deployments working for commons daemon from now on. I'm a committer but I wanted to ask if it's ok to add a m2 pom alongside the m1 project.xml so we can update the m2 repository. Thanks, Alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
