I'm trying to motivate to writing this... :-\
--jason
On Aug 16, 2006, at 7:41 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 7:13 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:56 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
What is the status on 1.1.1 wrt this change? Can I go ahead and
make these changes?
On Aug 17, 2006, at 11:10 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
David Blevins wrote:
Ok, let's go with "specs/tags/-"
This is my preference as well.
It is easy enough to change later if/when the top-level tags dir
becomes unwieldy... so I am fine with this.
--jason
David Blevins wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 5:16 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 4:38 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:28 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:21 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I guess I'd still prefer we do - for the tag
names as maven does.
I'm
I'm ok with dropping it.
-dain
On Aug 16, 2006, at 1:40 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
I have always been in favor of dropping any uber-jars. They cause
more problems then they are worth.
As for RTC... I am not so sure that this applies really. Its not
going to surprise anyone, its not adding
On Aug 16, 2006, at 5:16 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 4:38 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:28 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:21 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I guess I'd still prefer we do - for the
tag names as maven does.
I'm planning on putting
On Aug 16, 2006, at 7:13 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:56 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
What is the status on 1.1.1 wrt this change? Can I go ahead and
make these changes?
My reading of Matt's note (which I agree with) is that you should
wait until 1.1.1 has been shipped (unl
On Aug 16, 2006, at 4:38 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:28 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:21 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I guess I'd still prefer we do - for the tag
names as maven does.
I'm planning on putting - under /
but m2 handles this, all it needs it the
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:28 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:21 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I guess I'd still prefer we do - for the tag
names as maven does.
I'm planning on putting - under /
but m2 handles this, all it needs it the root to exist.
I see. When I suggested "specs/
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:21 PM, David Blevins wrote:
I guess I'd still prefer we do - for the tag
names as maven does.
I'm planning on putting - under /
but m2 handles this, all it needs it the root to exist.
There's also a small catch in that the directories we've been using
are not the a
I guess I'd still prefer we do - for the tag
names as maven does.
There's also a small catch in that the directories we've been using
are not the artifactIds.
-David
On Aug 16, 2006, at 2:06 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Does not really look like anything needs to be moved. The only
things (
Does not really look like anything needs to be moved. The only
things (other than svn ci) would be svn mkdir for each spec in tags,
since mvn release will not make that tree... as in:
svn mkdir https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/tags/
geronimo-spec-activation
svn mkdir https:/
On Aug 16, 2006, at 1:40 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
I have always been in favor of dropping any uber-jars. They cause
more problems then they are worth.
As for RTC... I am not so sure that this applies really. Its not
going to surprise anyone, its not adding any new code... just
fixing up
I have always been in favor of dropping any uber-jars. They cause
more problems then they are worth.
As for RTC... I am not so sure that this applies really. Its not
going to surprise anyone, its not adding any new code... just fixing
up the poms and moving a few bits around in svn.
But
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:56 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
What is the status on 1.1.1 wrt this change? Can I go ahead and
make these changes?
My reading of Matt's note (which I agree with) is that you should
wait until 1.1.1 has been shipped (unless 1.1.1 runs into an extended
delay in releasing
What is the status on 1.1.1 wrt this change? Can I go ahead and make
these changes?
--jason
On Aug 12, 2006, at 12:16 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
Jason,
I'm +1 on the change. In order to release 1.1.1 we need to release
an updated version of the J2EE_JAAC specs. I am waiting for
feedba
Jason,
I'm +1 on the change. In order to release 1.1.1 we need to release an updated version of the
J2EE_JAAC specs. I am waiting for feedback from Geir on some licensing issues as well as a TCK run
that Kevan is doing. That said I'd prefer to wait until the we cut the 1.1.1 release. If it
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 11 Aug 06, at 7:05 PM 11 Aug 06, Jason Dillon wrote:
I'm going to let this sit for the weekend, and if there are no
objections I'd like to implement this.
Or do we need a formal vote to to this?
You seem to have everyone's buy in, you've made the proposal and
prov
This is a good idea.
Regards,
Alan
Jason Dillon wrote:
On Aug 11, 2006, at 12:32 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Have you thought about using specs/tags/- for
the tag names? That's what maven does, so I'm guessing you noticed
and didn't like it for some reason.
The issue with that is that specs
On 11 Aug 06, at 7:05 PM 11 Aug 06, Jason Dillon wrote:
I'm going to let this sit for the weekend, and if there are no
objections I'd like to implement this.
Or do we need a formal vote to to this?
You seem to have everyone's buy in, you've made the proposal and
provided reasoning. Lazy
On 11 Aug 06, at 3:15 PM 11 Aug 06, Jason Dillon wrote:
A while ago there was talks about independently versioning specs,
and Alan started a reorg branch which gives each spec module its
own trunk+branches+tags...
I have been thinking about this for a while, and with the recent
desire to
I'm going to let this sit for the weekend, and if there are no
objections I'd like to implement this.
Or do we need a formal vote to to this?
--jason
On Aug 11, 2006, at 12:44 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
This feels like an excellent compromise where we can easily build
them together and the
Makes sense to me too. +1
Joe
Jason Dillon wrote:
A while ago there was talks about independently versioning specs, and
Alan started a reorg branch which gives each spec module its own trunk
+branches+tags...
I have been thinking about this for a while, and with the recent desire
to spli
On Aug 11, 2006, at 12:32 PM, David Blevins wrote:
Have you thought about using specs/tags/- for
the tag names? That's what maven does, so I'm guessing you noticed
and didn't like it for some reason.
The issue with that is that specs/tags becomes massive over time and
not easy to grok.
This feels like an excellent compromise where we can easily build
them together and they can be independently versioned.
-dain
On Aug 11, 2006, at 12:15 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
A while ago there was talks about independently versioning specs,
and Alan started a reorg branch which gives each
This is a good idea. I like it.
+1
Cheers
Prasad
On 8/11/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sounds fine to me.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 8/11/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A while ago there was talks about independently versioning specs, and
> Alan started a reorg branch
I like the direction. I think David's comment about
tags/artifact-version works also but tags will get a little busy. If one approach is closer to
Maven behaviour in terms of recommended practices I'd go with that .
Jason Dillon wrote:
A while ago there was talks about independently versioni
Sounds fine to me.
Thanks,
Aaron
On 8/11/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A while ago there was talks about independently versioning specs, and
Alan started a reorg branch which gives each spec module its own trunk
+branches+tags...
I have been thinking about this for a while, a
Great proposal, I like this. Comment below...
On Aug 11, 2006, at 12:15 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
[...]
So, here is what I propose:
specs/trunk/pom.xml
specs/trunk/
specs/tags//
Have you thought about using specs/tags/- for
the tag names? That's what maven does, so I'm guessing
A while ago there was talks about independently versioning specs, and
Alan started a reorg branch which gives each spec module its own trunk
+branches+tags...
I have been thinking about this for a while, and with the recent
desire to split off more modules from geronimo/trunk I've been
pon
29 matches
Mail list logo
