Henri Yandell wrote:
On 5/18/06, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
> On 5/13/06, robert burrell donkin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2006-04-06 at 08:51 +0200, Nicolas De Loof wrote:
>> > I agree about NOT making non-final jars available on ibiblio
>> (httpclient
>> > beeing an exception)
>> > So could the next RC be uploaded to
>> > http://cvs.apache.org/maven-snapshot-repository/ ?
>> >
>> > Please also consider using the new groupId recommandation for apache
>> > commons-X : org.apache.commons.X
>>
>> should we make this change for the whole of the commons?
>
> Opening this up again.
>
> groupId: org.apache.commons
> or
> groupId: org.apache.commons.X
>
> ??
As one of the goals in the commons charter (12) is to have one jar (=one
artifact) per subproject, I believe that org.apache.commons will work
nicely.
> The M2 repository has a better hierarchical structure, so I'm not sure
> we have to worry about jamming X in place.
>
> Here's the m2 repo for my commons-alike testing project:
>
> http://www.ibiblio.org/maven2/genjava/
>
> I'm thinking a group id of org.apache.commons for each component would
> work well.
>
> We've got both logging and collections in need of deployment. Also
> need to start putting the javadoc and sources in there too if
> possible.
What would be the best way to do this? Should we try to cram this into
the Apache Maven 1 repo or should we start to provide Maven 2 POMs for
all commons components instead? The Maven 2 repo has better support for
these kinds of extras.
Maven 1 repo; until we start doing it automatically from an m2 build
system. Less chance of us messing up the m2 repo that way.
So, should we go ahead and do this or does it require a vote?
<snip/>
--
Dennis Lundberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
