Changed back to maven 2.0.10 as Hudson now supports it.
Dejan Bosanac wrote: > > Hi David, > > is switch to maven 2.0.10 is mandatory? It makes problems with Hudson > builds, since it's still on Maven 2.0.9 (at least I couldn't make it build > with these changes). > > The other option is to ask Hudson administrators to add 2.0.10 option. > > Regards > Dejan > > > djencks wrote: >> >> OK, I resuscitated it as a embedded project ready to move out, in rev >> 787447. >> >> Someone who knows more history than I needs to look at the root >> LICENSE and NOTICE files for both activemq-flow and activemq-protobuf >> and fix them so they are accurate for the actual code in svn. >> >> Let me know if there are more problems... >> thanks >> david jencks >> >> On Jun 22, 2009, at 10:03 AM, Hiram Chirino wrote: >> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> I think in the longer term (Before ActiveMQ 6.0 goes out the door) >>> protobuf >>> will once again be spun out to be in it's own independently released >>> module. For now it was brought it as we wanted to refactor some >>> bits in for >>> the AMQ 6 stuff (for example it's Buffer abstractions are getting >>> moved into >>> a common util module). >>> >>> Regards, >>> Hiram >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 4:07 AM, David Jencks >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> In the sandbox 6.0, protobuf is set up as an independent project >>>> embedded >>>> in the regular amq svn tree. This is a bad idea since svn tags of >>>> activemq >>>> will include the protobuf code at an unrelated version number. >>>> >>>> Either protobuf should be definitely part of 6.0 and have a 6.0 >>>> version or >>>> it should be somewhere separate in svn. >>>> >>>> If you want separate projects but build convenience then check out >>>> both >>>> projects into a common directory and put a pom there to build both >>>> amq and >>>> protobuf and don't check that into svn. >>>> >>>> Which is intended? >>>> >>>> For now I've assumed that a common parent is intended and pretty >>>> much cut >>>> out the protobuf-pom but left the protobuf version at 1.1- >>>> SNAPSHOT. This is >>>> not a suitable permanent solution. >>>> >>>> thanks >>>> david jencks >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Hiram >>> >>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com >>> >>> Open Source SOA >>> http://fusesource.com/ >> >> > > ----- Dejan Bosanac Open Source Integration - http://fusesource.com/ ActiveMQ in Action - http://www.manning.com/snyder/ Blog - http://www.nighttale.net -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/intended-project-structure-for-protobuf-in-6.0--tp24122957p25368305.html Sent from the ActiveMQ - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
