Re: [DISCUSS]Incubator podling mvn pom files...

2007-02-22 Thread Jason van Zyl
On 22 Feb 07, at 1:23 PM 22 Feb 07, Niklas Gustavsson wrote: Trustin Lee wrote: I agree with the idea on extending a parent POM generally, but org.apache:apache-incubator might be more reasonable for the projects under incubation. I agree. Having an Incubator POM that includes the necessary

Re: [DISCUSS]Incubator podling mvn pom files...

2007-02-22 Thread Niklas Gustavsson
Trustin Lee wrote: I agree with the idea on extending a parent POM generally, but org.apache:apache-incubator might be more reasonable for the projects under incubation. I agree. Having an Incubator POM that includes the necessary stuff like the Maven remote resources, GPG and RAT plugin config

Re: [DISCUSS]Incubator podling mvn pom files...

2007-02-22 Thread Jeremy Boynes
If we end up switching to the main repos, then I think the pom would be fairly empty as the values in apache:3 would be reusable. I still think it is worth having as it ties the podling back to the offical project that is doing the releases. If we keep as we are, the repository, pluginRepos

Re: [DISCUSS]Incubator podling mvn pom files...

2007-02-22 Thread Daniel Kulp
On Thursday 22 February 2007 06:14, Trustin Lee wrote: > Hi, > > 2007-02-22 (목), 05:08 -0500, Daniel Kulp 쓰시길: > > While looking at the Trinidad stuff, I had some thoughts about > > requirements around pom files for Apache stuff and what "requirements" > > should be imposed. > > > > There are sever

Re: [DISCUSS]Incubator podling mvn pom files...

2007-02-22 Thread Jeremy Boynes
On Feb 22, 2007, at 2:08 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote: NOTE: Both (1) and (2) can be taken care of by having the org.apache:apache:3 artifact as the parent.Should that be a requirement? (Actually, should there be an incubator parent that lives in the middle?) I made a start on such a pom

Re: [DISCUSS]Incubator podling mvn pom files...

2007-02-22 Thread Trustin Lee
Hi, 2007-02-22 (목), 05:08 -0500, Daniel Kulp 쓰시길: > While looking at the Trinidad stuff, I had some thoughts about requirements > around pom files for Apache stuff and what "requirements" should be imposed. > > There are several things in a pom file that could affect how things appear > when so

Re: [DISCUSS]Incubator podling mvn pom files...

2007-02-22 Thread Matthias Wessendorf
I see sounds nice (I will add the to our trunk ) -M On 2/22/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thursday 22 February 2007 05:30, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > 4) element should be there and point to the proper homepage > > isn't optional ? Yes, but with a proper URL, tools can

Re: [DISCUSS]Incubator podling mvn pom files...

2007-02-22 Thread Daniel Kulp
On Thursday 22 February 2007 05:30, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > 4) element should be there and point to the proper homepage > > isn't optional ? Yes, but with a proper URL, tools can point back to the project. Example is the dependency report which will provide a link back to the project.

Re: [DISCUSS]Incubator podling mvn pom files...

2007-02-22 Thread Matthias Wessendorf
1) organization element: Somewhere up the heirarchy, we need to have: The Apache Software Foundation http://www.apache.org/ 2) licenses element: Somewhere up the heirarchy, we need to have: The Apache Software License, Version 2.0 ht

[DISCUSS]Incubator podling mvn pom files...

2007-02-22 Thread Daniel Kulp
While looking at the Trinidad stuff, I had some thoughts about requirements around pom files for Apache stuff and what "requirements" should be imposed. There are several things in a pom file that could affect how things appear when someone takes a dependency on an Apache project. Thus, we ne