On Jul 21, 2006, at 2:06 PM, Ken Tam wrote:
So right now sca doesn't define a groupId and is parented to
tuscany-project w/ groupId o.a.t..
That is so last night ... ;-)
In r424080 I disinherited the project from its parent (like the other
sdo and das poms) so that people could build sca without needed to
build from the root first (or doing mvn -N at the root anyway)
would this mean sca would continue
to be parented to tuscany-project, but define a new groupId? What
difference would this make? (I don't really get how maven treats this
hierarchy to understand what the pros/cons are here)
There is no significance to the heirarchy, it is just way of
partitioning it up. This would mean that sdo, das and sca would all
be peers under o.a.t rather than giving sca some perceived precedence
in the root.
We already have sub-hierarchies for containers, databinding,
samples, ...
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
