On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:29 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:
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?
I think it should use "geronimo" I think otherwise we will get into
trouble later on when transitive dependencies become available. If
we clearly distinguish real m2 jars from m1 built jars accessed
through m2 I think we will have fewer upgrade problems.
david jencks
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
