On 03/11/2010 1:17 PM, Haszlakiewicz, Eric wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ron Wheeler [mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com]
On 02/11/2010 3:29 PM, Haszlakiewicz, Eric wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ron Wheeler [mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com]
The guys with small disk
>-Original Message-
>From: Ron Wheeler [mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com]
>
>On 02/11/2010 3:29 PM, Haszlakiewicz, Eric wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Ron Wheeler [mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com]
>>> The guys with small disk can just delete their entire local re
On 02/11/2010 3:29 PM, Haszlakiewicz, Eric wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Ron Wheeler [mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com]
The guys with small disk can just delete their entire local repo and let
maven rebuild it by itself from your central server which should have
lots of space.
One
> My point it that using more disk space has more costs than just the price
> of a drive platter.
>
It also has a lot of savings. And besides, you don't need all the frills. What
you doing right now sounds very very costly. A simply investment in a bare
bones server will save you a lot.
--
>-Original Message-
>From: Ron Wheeler [mailto:rwhee...@artifact-software.com]
>The guys with small disk can just delete their entire local repo and let
>maven rebuild it by itself from your central server which should have
>lots of space.
>One or two builds usually gets us back to a fast b
On 02/11/2010 1:20 PM, Haszlakiewicz, Eric wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Martin Gainty [mailto:mgai...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 1:14 PM
To: users@maven.apache.org
Subject: RE: Request to re-open MNG-3472
Hi Brian
if diskspace was a concern i would concur but as
>-Original Message-
>From: Martin Gainty [mailto:mgai...@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 1:14 PM
>To: users@maven.apache.org
>Subject: RE: Request to re-open MNG-3472
>
>Hi Brian
>
>if diskspace was a concern i would concur but as each repository
our le contenu fourni.
> From: brian.lev...@nokia.com
> To: users@maven.apache.org
> Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:28:27 +0200
> Subject: RE: Request to re-open MNG-3472
>
> I'm not suggesting that Maven periodically run a task to purge the repo. I'm
> suggesti
-Original Message-
> From: ext Wendy Smoak [mailto:wsm...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 8:43 AM
> To: Maven Users List
> Subject: Re: Request to re-open MNG-3472
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:26 AM, wrote:
>> Is it each
>> developer's respo
dy Smoak [mailto:wsm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 8:43 AM
To: Maven Users List
Subject: Re: Request to re-open MNG-3472
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:26 AM, wrote:
> Is it each
> developer's responsibility to understand the details of how snapshot
> artifacts are m
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:26 AM, wrote:
> Is it each
> developer's responsibility to understand the details of how snapshot
> artifacts are managed in the local repository and periodically clean up after
> Maven? I don't think so. It seems like the best solution here is to allow
> a retention
We won't reopen this. To add the logic here we'd have to copy it out of one of
the repository managers which doesn't make any sense.
What we will do in the future (read 3.1) is have a separation in the local
repository repository structure between releases and snapshots. This way you
can turf a
All,
It appears that the behavior I described in my previous email regarding
snapshot behavior in the local repository is expected Maven behavior. I found
the following issue that was raised some time ago regarding this:
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3472
This issue was closed as "won't
13 matches
Mail list logo
