My view is 100% the opposite. We should provide only snapshot jars and if they want the source they should get it from SVN. This is for two reasons - a) deploying snapshots is easy and b) this is not a release.
Ralph On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:41 AM, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 8/1/11 9:25 AM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote: >> Le 01/08/2011 17:57, Ralph Goers a écrit : >>> These will just be new SNAPSHOTs so deploying a new one every >>> evening regardless of whether it has changed should be no big >>> deal. SNAPSHOTs without a timestamp overwrite a previous one >>> while timestamped SNAPSHOTs should be cleaned up automatically by >>> Nexus. >> >> What's the preferred strategy? Timestamped snapshots or not? > > I think its better to have a timestamp and to create full nightlies > - not just snapshot jars, but full timestamted source and binary > tarballs as we used to. FWIW, I think it is better not to push > snaps into maven repos, but rather to place tarballs in a location > where the sources and jars can be downloaded and unpacked. This is > to emphasize that the reason we are providing them is for developers > to look at the sources and test with the jars, rather than to > encourage "snapshot dependencies." If the machine account problem > has been solved from vmbuild to p.a.o, this should be pretty easy to > automate. I may have old scripts around somewhere that worked > modulo this problem. > > Phil >> >> Emmanuel Bourg >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
