On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Albert Kurucz <albert.kur...@gmail.com> wrote: > Brian, > Probably no one ever suggested that the corrupt artifacts should be > fixed, because fixing is not even possible (every artifact must be > signed by the creator). > The question is whether you prefer the corrupt ones to be removed or > just wait until they become obsolete and no one would care about that > they stay or not (quantity or quality has the priority?).
To take this further you must define corrupt. If something is demonstrated truly and completely broken and/or dangerous, it will be removed immediately. If a pom is missing a dependency, that doesn't qualify, it's up to the project to fix and produce a new release in that case. > The work on preventing the ugly ones from getting in I agree has the > first priority. > But will you address (and when?) this second most important task, the > garbage collection? We are actively working on technology to address this, expect details in the near future. What do you mean by garbage collection? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
