NP Chris thanks for expending the brain cycles to look over this mess.
Alex On 5/23/07, Chris Custine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You know what? Disregard my last email. I wasn't thinking about this properly. I understand what you are saying now (don't ask me why I didn't get it 5 minutes ago). In fact, I agree with you 100%. Two things... 1). Not sure I understand what rule #3 is about. 2). In this scenario, the maven guys also recommend just using an incremented counter for the parent pom version, like 1,2,3,4,5 instead of 1.0, 1.2, 2.0, etc. I guess this is basically because there is no artifact produced so the versioning should be as simple as possible. Just passing that along... And now that I have my head on straight... my first vote. ;-) [x] +1 Apply this policy/process for TLP POM management On 5/23/07, Chris Custine <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > I fall into the "dazed and confused" camp at the moment so I need to do > some more reading to fully understand. One part in particular that I don't > understand is this line: > > "This causes it's misuse to facilitate building ApacheDS and all it's > dependencies in one big build. This must stop because this usage makes it > inconvenient to use for building other projects like Triplesec and LDAP > Studio once it moves to Maven." > > I actually LIKE it this way :-) I don't think this actually causes any > harm anyway, because if you build a project that references this pom as a > parent, the modules section is ignored IIRC. Are you talking about some > other issue with the parent pom? > > These maven setups are definitely a complex issue so I find myself > wanting to take a cautious approach... > > Chris > > On 5/22/07, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I compiled some documentation talking about how we should handle a > > parent POM for our TLP > > so all subprojects can inherit from it. We have been using it > > incorrectly and have been loosing > > track of it. I explain all this and expose some simple policy (6 > > rules) that will help us keep this > > all straight [1]. > > > > Please read this and let's vote on it make it official. > > > > [ ] +1 Apply this policy/process for TLP POM management > > [ ] +/-0 Abstain - don't understand or don't care > > [ ] -1 Do *NOT* apply this policy for TLP POM management > > > > -- Alex > > > > ------- > > [1] - http://cwiki.apache.org/DIRxDEV/top-level-pom-management-policy.html > > > > > > > > >
