Hi, Clement Escoffier schrieb: > Hi, > On 18.04.2009, at 11:41, Felix Meschberger wrote: > >> Hi Stuart, >> >> Stuart McCulloch schrieb: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'd like to stage a new release of our parent pom (ie. pom/pom.xml) - >>> this >>> will exercise the new release process. >>> Are there any objections to starting this? Does anyone have any >>> changes they >>> would like to make to this pom? >>> >>> Note that this isn't a vote on the actual release - I will start that >>> once >>> I've staged it using Nexus. >>> >>> Also please hold off from any new releases until I've tried out the new >>> process and documented it on the wiki :) >> >> Can we split the parent pom (definitions pertaining to all Felix >> projects) and reactor (<modules> section) functionalities into into two >> files by that matter ? >> >> We could for example create a reactor project at trunk, which stays at >> SNAPSHOT version for ever and which we can update as we see fit to >> accomodate new child projects. >> >> The actual parent pom would remain where it was and would be updated and >> released for release new general setup such as the deployment >> configuration. >> >> In addition it is IMO also a matter of separation of concerns (reactor >> vs. general setup). We have done this in the Sling and Jackrabbit >> projects with much success (IMHO). > > I agree having two files: > - one with the reactor configuration and > - one with the release / project configuration > sounds good. > > Projects should inherit of the release / project configuration pom file. > > However, aren't we already in this mode ? Recently, I saw a pom file in > the Felix root (the reactor one ?) and one in the pom folder.
I was confused by this file, too. But the actual reactor is in the pom/pom.xml file. > > Another idea would to use -Pprofile name instead of -Dpackaging=xxx. For > example we can define a "default", a test profile, and an example Sounds reasonable. Regards Felix > profile... The -Dpackaging=xxx was introduced to turn around a bug in > Maven avoiding having different packaging types in a project. However, > this issue is now fixed. So, maybe we can just remove this separation. > > Regards, > > Clement > > >> >> >> Regards >> Felix >> > >
