On Dec 16, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 16 Dec 06, at 11:26 AM 16 Dec 06, Kevan Miller wrote:
On Dec 15, 2006, at 6:41 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
this change really killed me for all of the build automation I
have been working on... and was one of the reasons why I had
warned against using this style of versioning.
basically since this was removed, checking out the specs project
and building it produces nothing, except for this:
org/apache/geronimo/specs/specs/maven-metadata-local.xml
org/apache/geronimo/specs/specs/1.2/specs-1.2.pom
org/apache/geronimo/specs/specs/1.2/specs-1.2-site.xml
<snip>
I think this discussion has gotten a bit off track. I don't think
we should be discussing archiva capabilities, at all.
IMO, we release source code. Binary distributions and maven
artifacts are a convenience. If users can't build our source code,
then there's a problem.
You think your users build from sources to make their Geronimo
servers for production or are you talking about just the specs? I
would argue that it's rare for users to want to build everything
from source, but even if they only built the Geronimo sources they
still need all the binary dependencies at which point the quality
of the repository matters. I think the discussion is germane in the
context of your users building production systems from source.
Jason van Zyl,
No, I don't expect users to be building specs from source. However,
if users chose to build our sources, I expect our sources to build.
If users find problems, I expect that they can patch our source and
build patched versions of our software. Do you disagree with any of
that?
Jason Dillon said he was having a problem building our specs. I'm
trying to understand his problem.
The behavior and reliability of maven repos is a great discussion to
have. It's just moving off of what I think is the core issue...
--kevan
