2009/4/18 Clement Escoffier <[email protected]>

> 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.
>

yep, that's where we're headed ;)


> Another idea would to use -Pprofile name instead of -Dpackaging=xxx. For
> example we can define a "default", a test profile, and an example 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.
>

possibly, though we may have people using back-level versions of Maven - but
definitely something to look into...


> Regards,
>
> Clement
>
>
>
>>
>> Regards
>> Felix
>>
>>
>


-- 
Cheers, Stuart

Reply via email to