(3) partially works. It does translate, but does not handle relocated artifacts.
- Joakim Brett Porter wrote: > I thought (3) already worked. > > I didn't think this was about identifying the client, but correctly > serving a legacy layout request off either type of repo (whether its > m1 or m2 with legacy layout). > > - Brett > > On 27/02/2007, at 2:37 AM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote: > >> Out of curiosity, what's important ... >> >> 1) Archiva serving up maven 1 (legacy) layout repositories. (easy / >> done) >> 2) Archiva conversion of maven 1 repository to maven 2 repository. >> (easy / done) >> 3) Archiva being able to proxy maven 2 content for maven 1 clients. >> (moderate / needs work) >> 4) Archiva being able to serve relocated artifacts to maven 1 clients >> transparently. (moderate / needs work) >> 5) Archiva gui having ability to artifact relocations. (moderate / needs >> work) >> >> Archiva does not know who is connecting to it. >> It could be a maven 1 client, it could be a maven 2 client, it could be >> a user. >> >> If we assume that legacy layout repositories are only served to maven 1 >> clients, then we can handle points 3 and 4 above. But if a maven 2 >> client uses the legacy repository, then points 3 and 4 could mask and/or >> hide the relocation warnings on the client side. Is that behavior >> acceptable? >> >> - Joakim >> >> nicolas de loof wrote: >>> Could you consider my patch to MRM-153 : archiva beeing maven1 >>> compliant is >>> required for me as lot's of my project still use maven1 to build. >>> >>> 2007/2/26, Joakim Erdfelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>> >>>> We are working towards a stable archiva version (alpha) this week. >>>> Stay tuned for the tag or release. >>>> >>>> - Joakim Erdfelt >>>> >>>> Tomek Korzeniewski wrote: >>>>> Greetings to the Archiva Team! >>>>> >>>>> Would it be possible to create a tag in the svn repo of a stable, >>>> 'builds / >>>>> works without problem after checkout', version of Archiva? I've been >>>> looking >>>>> at the dev forum lately and notice that there are a lot of changes >>>> being >>>>> proposed and ones merged from the archiva MRM-239 branch. >>>>> >>>>> After reading the many different wiki entries and posts regarding >>>> getting >>>>> archiva up and running, and the issues users have been having >>>> regarding >>>>> changes made to the trunk I am weary about checking out what is >>>> available at >>>>> the moment. >>>>> >>>>> If you already have something of the sort in the pipeline could you >>>> please >>>>> post your plans. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks in advance. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >
