On Friday 19 May 2006 17:23, Dennis Lundberg wrote: > > Personally I strongly believe in once an artifact has been released > > -- with or without errors in the artifacts POM -- it should be left > > in the state it's in. If a change is required due to a malformed POM, > > a missing groupId, non-existing parent, missing dependency, wrong > > scope of a dependency or the alike, it should be left in the state it > > is in. If an update is required a new version should be released. > > For projects that use Maven for building and releasing your idea is > good. But for projects that does not have a POM of their own this > doesn't work. Most of the issues in MEV are for projects without POMs. > The POMs that get uploaded to these issues are often not made by the > people *responsible* for the project but by people *using* the project. > Because of this errors do occur in these POMs more often than one would > like.
Right. But if an error is detected in a pom, why does the pom have to be updated. For example, if there is a: foo/1.0/foo-1.0.pom why can't we do something like Gentoo Linux and leave that alone and then add a: foo/1.0-R2/foo-1.0-R2.pom It's stilll "foo 1.0 as release by the foo developers", but its the R2 "update" as far as the maven repository is concerned. If the foo developers produce a 1.0.1, fine. We create a: foo/1.0.1/foo-1.0.1.pom Thus, existing apps and such that depend on the broken behavior are OK and others can migrate to the "correct" poms as needed. Anyway, I COMPLETELY agree that stuff put up on ibiblio as a release, correct or broken, should stay that way. -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer IONA P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]