Re: RE: deploy-snapshot vs. war:deploy-snapshot and ear:deploy-snapsh ot

2004-06-28 Thread Brett Porter
looks good to me... will apply when I get a chance. Thanks, Brett On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:09:56 -0600, Leif Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > After 6 months... I wrote a small patch.. MPARTIFACT-22. I started with > the latest HEAD version of the artifact plugin in CVS. This adds the > "s

RE: deploy-snapshot vs. war:deploy-snapshot and ear:deploy-snapsh ot

2004-06-28 Thread Leif Nelson
After 6 months... I wrote a small patch.. MPARTIFACT-22. I started with the latest HEAD version of the artifact plugin in CVS. This adds the "scpexe://" protocol to the artifact plugin. Provides eqivalent funcionality to the old maven.ssh.executable and maven.scp.executable properties. He

RE: deploy-snapshot vs. war:deploy-snapshot and ear:deploy-snapsh ot

2003-11-20 Thread Brett Porter
> There is a special type of deployer in maven-artifact plugin called > "External", which was supposed to be used for executing > arbitrary user > defined programs (like putty). This deployer is > "half-finished". A new > protocol sounds like a good idea. Leif: Patches and > documentation a

Re: deploy-snapshot vs. war:deploy-snapshot and ear:deploy-snapsh ot

2003-11-20 Thread Michal Maczka
Brett Porter wrote: Hi Leif, (Sorry for CC'ing back to the list again, but they'll probably want to review this) Sounds like a good idea - perhaps a new protocol could be added to artifact (scpexe:// ?) that uses the mentioned parameters. Alternatively, it might be a branch of the existing protoc

RE: deploy-snapshot vs. war:deploy-snapshot and ear:deploy-snapsh ot

2003-11-19 Thread Brett Porter
Hi Leif, (Sorry for CC'ing back to the list again, but they'll probably want to review this) Sounds like a good idea - perhaps a new protocol could be added to artifact (scpexe:// ?) that uses the mentioned parameters. Alternatively, it might be a branch of the existing protocl based on another p

RE: deploy-snapshot vs. war:deploy-snapshot and ear:deploy-snapsh ot

2003-11-19 Thread Brett Porter
Your analysis is correct. Artifact needs to be more friendly to SSH, jar:deploy should use artifact. The reason it hasn't moved is because of the fact that artifact still needs more work. Cheers, Brett > -Original Message- > From: Leif Nelson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday,