On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:47, Stuart McCulloch <[email protected]> wrote:

> 2009/9/2 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>
>
> > Ok, let me know when the request has been created (so that I can try to
> > push
> > it).
> >
>
> well at the moment I'm trying to get Peter set up with:
>
>   http://nexus.sonatype.org/oss-repository-hosting.html
>
> but I honestly don't know how long it will take, depends how busy Peter is
>

Would it be easier to do as indicated at

http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html#Syncing_your_own_repository_to_the_central_repository_automatically
This avoids the need to switch to nexus, use new repositories, etc...
It just need to upload the maven key to his server to allow ssh access.


>
> so if you want to go ahead and open a manual upload request for 0.0.356 in
> parallel at http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MAVENUPLOAD please feel free
>
> the artifacts that we need uploaded can be found here:
>
>   http://www.aqute.biz/repo/biz/aQute/bndlib/0.0.356/
>

I will.


>
> --
> Cheers, Stuart
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:03, Stuart McCulloch <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > 2009/9/2 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > > Why is there a need to wait for bnd to be in central given that the
> > > source
> > > > code is included in the bundle plugin project ?
> > > > Is that just temporary ?
> > >
> > >
> > > yes - Peter has his own Maven repo for Bnd, but unfortunately this is
> not
> > > sync'd to central
> > > (I've suggested he sets up sync'ing a number of times, but this is not
> > high
> > > on his todo list)
> > >
> > > we don't use Peter's repository in the bundleplugin pom.xml because
> it's
> > > not
> > > good practice
> > > (the additional repository would then get hit for all maven artifacts,
> > not
> > > just the bnd groupId)
> > >
> > > previously I've got Carlos to upload the artifact manually, but this
> gets
> > > very tiresome during
> > > development which is why I decided to just put a copy of the source
> there
> > > at
> > > the moment
> > >
> > > if we released the plugin with this source then you wouldn't be able to
> > > override the bnd
> > > version during the build (because there's no dependency) and it makes
> > > things
> > > messy
> > >
> > >
> > > > Also did anyone asked for the new version to be
> > > > put in central already ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I was just about to - there's been a few regressions in the recent
> > builds,
> > > but Peter has
> > > just blessed 0.0.356 as a good build. Bear in mind that a manual upload
> > to
> > > central can
> > > take a while, depending who's available to do the upload (which is why
> > sync
> > > is better).
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:36, Stuart McCulloch <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 2009/9/2 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>
> > > > >
> > > > > > I've tried to release gogo this morning and after fixing a few
> > > things,
> > > > > i've
> > > > > > badly hit FELIX-1262 which is actually fixed in the latest
> snapshot
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > maven bundle plugin.
> > > > > > Is this plugin in a state to be released now ?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > no it's not in a state to be released - for one we want to move to
> > the
> > > > > latest bndlib (and first we need that available on central)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I can try to release it unless somebody is willing to do it.
>  What
> > > > would
> > > > > be
> > > > > > the version to use ?  2.0.1, 2.0.2 ? Not sure to have a good
> > > > > understanding
> > > > > > of the version scheme with odd/even numbers for minor releases.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 08:25, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd like to release a first version of Gogo.
> > > > > > > However, given the RFC is bound to change and that we might
> > > introduce
> > > > > > > other changes that will break the syntax, I wonder if we should
> > use
> > > a
> > > > > > > 0.2.0 version instead of 1.0.0.
> > > > > > > In addition, we will release the org.osgi.service.command
> package
> > > > > > > which is not official, so I think keeping a version < 1.0.0
> makes
> > > > > > > sense until a spec is released for that.
> > > > > > > Thoughts ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Guillaume Nodet
> > > > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > > > Open Source SOA
> > > > > > > http://fusesource.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Guillaume Nodet
> > > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > ------------------------
> > > > > > Open Source SOA
> > > > > > http://fusesource.com
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Cheers, Stuart
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Guillaume Nodet
> > > > ------------------------
> > > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> > > > ------------------------
> > > > Open Source SOA
> > > > http://fusesource.com
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Cheers, Stuart
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Guillaume Nodet
> > ------------------------
> > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> > ------------------------
> > Open Source SOA
> > http://fusesource.com
> >
>



-- 
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com

Reply via email to