John Casey wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In my opinion, this thread is not particularly useful. As far as I know,
> we have not called for a vote on the final release of Maven 2.0. (we
> haven't even released -beta-1 yet, for crying out loud!)
>
> This is my last re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In my opinion, this thread is not particularly useful. As far as I know,
we have not called for a vote on the final release of Maven 2.0. (we
haven't even released -beta-1 yet, for crying out loud!)
This is my last reply on this thread; it is fast gr
Kris Bravo wrote:
You didn't get my point.
My point was that it is irrelevant if POMs in the repository are minimal or
not.
But it is extremely important that information which is the main maven
repository is _not changing_!!!
I did get your overall point. But contrary to what you're no
> You didn't get my point.
>
> My point was that it is irrelevant if POMs in the repository are minimal or
> not.
> But it is extremely important that information which is the main maven
> repository is _not changing_!!!
>
I did get your overall point. But contrary to what you're now saying,
yo
> -Original Message-
> From: Kris Bravo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 5:18 PM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: RE: POM issues in the repository
>
> There is nothing wrong with having or using the minimal POMs
> that can be fou
What about taking a play from the Gentoo Portage book? Something similar
to the package masking ~arch keyword might do the trick:
Add an extra tag to the POM schema which indicates whether or not the
POM is stable.
Add a tag in the settings file which indicates whether or not you want
to use unst
There is nothing wrong with having or using the minimal POMs that can be
found in the repository. As a user if I find, for example, a sun library
for which no POM exists, I am willing to submit a basic POM which will
cause my build to continue unimpeded by its absence. I won't however,
stop every t
John Casey wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think that such a drastic step will only serve to completely
marginalize maven 2.x, and alienate users. Who would convert to using m2
if they first had to re-request uploads for the 10 dependencies they
have??
I hope that m2 u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I think that such a drastic step will only serve to completely
marginalize maven 2.x, and alienate users. Who would convert to using m2
if they first had to re-request uploads for the 10 dependencies they
have?? While I agree that the repository inform
> -Original Message-
> From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 7:12 PM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: POM issues in the repository
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> 1. define sanity.
&g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
1. define sanity.
2. define validity.
We have a tool out there right now that converts POMs from the m1
repository to the m2 repository, and does some meager checking on the
XML/model validity of the POM on the way. HOWEVER, that's not the same
as sa
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 10:41 +0200, Vincent Massol wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> There needs to be a big effort to clean the m2 repo of bad POMs (or missing
> deps). I've told several people to try out m2 and they haven't been able to
> use it because of this (for example try depending on dom4j in your ow
Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi there,
There needs to be a big effort to clean the m2 repo of bad POMs (or missing
deps). I've told several people to try out m2 and they haven't been able to
use it because of this (for example try depending on dom4j in your own
project's POM).
My question is:
1/ Do
Hi there,
There needs to be a big effort to clean the m2 repo of bad POMs (or missing
deps). I've told several people to try out m2 and they haven't been able to
use it because of this (for example try depending on dom4j in your own
project's POM).
My question is:
1/ Do we have any tool to check
14 matches
Mail list logo
