Sam writes:
| dIon Gillard wrote: | > | > any objection to me changing the 'from' name for Maven generated | > descriptors to 'Maven Developers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>' | ? | > Since, if there's anything wrong with the descriptor, that's the best | > place to report it? | | At the moment, that may seem wise, but will it scale? Once Maven | stabilizes and gets even a fraction of the usage of Ant, will the maven-dev | development list still be the most likely place to look for assistance? Maybe...or maven users... | In any case, experiment and see what's best. | | Thought experiment: what happens when there is a change to Maven needed? | How can you be sure that it doesn't adversely impact the various projects | which use maven? Wouldn't it be nice if the various gump related files | which were generated by Maven could be regenerated as a part of the Gump | run instead of using possibly stale versions from cvs? What changes to | Maven and/or Gump would be required to make this work? Maven can regenerate the descriptors fairly easily, except that it makes an assumption about the 'project' that conflict with Gump: - Maven assumes the project is the only one in the module (at the moment, although this is changing), as Maven has no concept yet of a module. This means for commons projects the descriptor is not easily integrated into the existing one. This is changing, and project/subproject (module style) relationships are currently in the plan. To get this to work with Gump would mean that Gump could ask a Maven project to regenerate it's gump descriptor before building it, i.e. call maven:gump-descriptor before maven:dist-build -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Work: http://www.multitask.com.au Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
