well.. the parent pom is a good one because i just had to tweak its version down to 1.0.0 because the sub-poms are depending on this version (and not on 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
after this, the full commons stack built successfully, and at least some of them (activation,transaction,beanutils,logging) are working as dependecies in a corporate project i am working on. So, +1 for the parent-pom from this perspective. For the general discussion i agree with Niclas and Stuart. Teaching people how to wrap things is always a good idea and should be enforced. (just like the old saying "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for life." ;-) And for the one who are just hungry (sometimes we are) tooling is all.. Perhaps a hybrid solution of "on-the-fly-wrapping-any given-bunch-of-classes(aka jar)" and "know what you do, provide a MANIFEST or pom.xml" would be a killerapp if deployed on the web. /Toni -- Toni Menzel - Software Developer http://tonitcom.blogspot.com/ http://osgify.com contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:25:41 +0200 > Von: Carsten Ziegeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > An: [email protected] > Betreff: Re: No interest in commons releases? > It seems that I'll leave the vote open as long as people have time to > look at the stuff. > > However, it would be good if one or two could at least have a look at > the parent pom for commons, so we can release that one and rely in all > sub projects on the released version. > > Carsten > > > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
