Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Tomasz Pik wrote:
On 8/21/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tomasz Pik wrote:
> Maven won't 'redownload' commons-lang:commons-lang:2.1
> and if threre'll be something that depends on
> org.apache.commons:commons-lang:2.2.
> Maven won't know that it's only a
Tomasz Pik wrote:
On 8/21/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tomasz Pik wrote:
> Maven won't 'redownload' commons-lang:commons-lang:2.1
> and if threre'll be something that depends on
> org.apache.commons:commons-lang:2.2.
> Maven won't know that it's only a version difference, for
On 8/21/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tomasz Pik wrote:
> Maven won't 'redownload' commons-lang:commons-lang:2.1
> and if threre'll be something that depends on
> org.apache.commons:commons-lang:2.2.
> Maven won't know that it's only a version difference, for Maven
> those compo
Tomasz Pik wrote:
On 8/20/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tomasz Pik wrote:
> On 8/16/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Yes, but instead of transiting something, that depends on other
commons
>> > IMHO something without dependencies should be transited first.
On 8/20/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tomasz Pik wrote:
> On 8/16/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Yes, but instead of transiting something, that depends on other commons
>> > IMHO something without dependencies should be transited first.
>> > In other words,
Oliver Heger wrote:
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
I had a look at the Apache Maven 1 repo at
http://people.apache.org/repo/m1-ibiblio-rsync-repository/
There doesn't seem to be any consistency when looking at different
components. I had a look at a few:
configuration:
- older jars have md5
- ne
Tomasz Pik wrote:
On 8/16/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, but instead of transiting something, that depends on other commons
> IMHO something without dependencies should be transited first.
> In other words, first thing to be done should be a graph of
dependencies
> betw
On 8/19/06, Oliver Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tomasz Pik wrote:
> On 8/16/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Yes, but instead of transiting something, that depends on other
commons
>> > IMHO something without dependencies should be transited first.
>> > In other words, f
Tomasz Pik wrote:
On 8/16/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, but instead of transiting something, that depends on other commons
> IMHO something without dependencies should be transited first.
> In other words, first thing to be done should be a graph of
dependencies
> betw
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
I had a look at the Apache Maven 1 repo at
http://people.apache.org/repo/m1-ibiblio-rsync-repository/
There doesn't seem to be any consistency when looking at different
components. I had a look at a few:
configuration:
- older jars have md5
- newer jars have md5 and
On 8/16/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, but instead of transiting something, that depends on other commons
> IMHO something without dependencies should be transited first.
> In other words, first thing to be done should be a graph of dependencies
> between various commons p
On 8/16/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release-signing.html#policy
> [2] http://people.apache.org/~henkp/checker/sig.html
Thanks for those pointers Rahul. I'll be sure to add, at least the first
one to the guide.
I had a
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
On 8/16/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
> AFAIK, nothing should go into any of the Apache Maven repos unless its
> summed and signed. Commons has no particular privilege here, in fact,
> we should ensure that all artifacts are accompa
Tomasz Pik wrote:
On 8/15/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On 8/12/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Oliver Heger wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > just wanted to ask if there is already a resolution related to the
>> > groupIds of commons components.
On 8/16/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
> AFAIK, nothing should go into any of the Apache Maven repos unless its
> summed and signed. Commons has no particular privilege here, in fact,
> we should ensure that all artifacts are accompanied by appropriate
>
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
On 8/15/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
> Do we want to do this? Shouldn't we transition all of Commons together
> (as Tomasz implies in previous post, and just like we did with the
> JIRA transition). Suboptimal if folks have to look
On 8/15/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
>
> Do we want to do this? Shouldn't we transition all of Commons together
> (as Tomasz implies in previous post, and just like we did with the
> JIRA transition). Suboptimal if folks have to look up which components
>
On 8/15/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On 8/12/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Oliver Heger wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > just wanted to ask if there is already a resolution related to the
>> > groupIds of commons components.
>> >
>
>>
>> Ever
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
On 8/12/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oliver Heger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just wanted to ask if there is already a resolution related to the
> groupIds of commons components.
>
Everything is set to make the transition to the new groupId. I was
hoping that we c
On 8/12/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oliver Heger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just wanted to ask if there is already a resolution related to the
> groupIds of commons components.
>
Everything is set to make the transition to the new groupId. I was
hoping that we could use the upcoming
Everything is set to make the transition to the new groupId. I was
hoping that we could use the upcoming release of configuration as the
first release with the new groupId.
I will do the necessary work to relocate this and previous releases of
configuration, once the release has been made, so tha
Oliver Heger wrote:
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Oliver Heger wrote:
Hi,
just wanted to ask if there is already a resolution related to the
groupIds of commons components.
[configuration] is preparing for the next release. ATM the pom
defines the new groupId "org.apache.commons". Should we go wi
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Oliver Heger wrote:
Hi,
just wanted to ask if there is already a resolution related to the
groupIds of commons components.
[configuration] is preparing for the next release. ATM the pom defines
the new groupId "org.apache.commons". Should we go with that (which
addit
Oliver Heger wrote:
Hi,
just wanted to ask if there is already a resolution related to the
groupIds of commons components.
[configuration] is preparing for the next release. ATM the pom defines
the new groupId "org.apache.commons". Should we go with that (which
additional work would this ca
24 matches
Mail list logo
