On 7/11/06, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd recommend that projects using m2 wait for G 1.2, which will hopefully be sooner rather than later.
Too late. For example, the Quartz plugin (already available on the plugin repo) uses G 1.1 and Maven 2. I've been copying JARs around by hand, which is annoying, and why I want to solve this. There are more people getting involved in developing plugins, and it's hard to recommend Maven 1 and hard to recommend file copying (and *extra* hard to recommend waiting for Geronimo 1.2, given the current velocity).
If a project is using m2 and can't wait for G 1.2, then it should setup a legacy repo and use the m1 artifacts.
OK, that's fine, but should it use the groupId "geronimo" or "org.apache.geronimo.modules" when referring to, e.g., geronimo-kernel? Thanks, Aaron
On Jul 11, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: > On 7/10/06, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think that it's better to have different group ids for the M1 >> and M2 >> jars since their contents, maven wise, are quite different. IIUC, we >> really shouldn't be putting M1 jars into an M2 repo. > > So are you taking the position that we should not support Maven 2 > builds with dependencies on Geronimo 1.1, or that we should support > Maven 2 builds with dependencies on 1.1 but only if they use the > "Maven 1 Group ID" for Geronimo and then change the Group ID when they > update to Geronimo 1.2? > > My position is that if someone is using Maven 2 with dependencies on > Geronimo, they should use the "Maven 2 Group ID" for Geronimo, > regardless of which version of Geronimo they're depending on. > > Or, perhaps you're saying that we should keep the JARs in a Maven 1 > repo but put them in there twice, in one place for the "Maven 1 Group > ID" (for Maven 1 clients) and in a different place for the "Maven 2 > Group ID" for Maven 2 clients (who need to point their build to a > Maven 1 repo but from what you've said that will work)? > > Thanks, > Aaron
