I can update them but that would mean they are no longer 1.1.1 but
should probably be 1.1.2. That is more a philosophical discussion.
I'm happy to update them but wasn't sure of the ramifications as we
would then have two different versions of the poms. I'm happy to
make them go away although I don't know if there will be secondary
problems.
I believe the cars for 1.1.1 were released.
One problem is that there wasn't an indication of a problem during
the release cycle which is something we'll have to fix going forward.
Other thoughts?
On Oct 20, 2006, at 12:35 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
Isn't the best way to just put the updated
files to the M1 repo at
http://people.apache.org/repo/m1-ibiblio-rsync-repository/
or send updated poms to Carlos ?
Personally, I'd prefer not having these poms at all
(speaking of all poms, not these in particular).
The dependencies are not good enough to use
them in a maven 2 project (they include tons
of transitive deps which should be optional / test).
The best would be some really minimal poms
(wihout dependencies, aso). And for next 1.1.x
releases, it would be nice to have the cars uploaded
as well.
On 10/20/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I received a note from Carlos on the Maven team and it appears there
is an issue with a few artifacts that were released in 1.1 and
1.1.1. Here is the list of the poms in the Maven 1 repo.
'geronimo:geronimo-javamail-transport:jar:1.1.1'
- Missing 'siteDirectory': Both siteAddress and siteDirectory must be
set at the same time.
'geronimo:geronimo-console-web:jar:1.1.1'
- Missing 'siteDirectory': Both siteAddress and siteDirectory must be
set at the same time.
'geronimo:geronimo-demo:war:1.1.1'
- Missing 'siteDirectory': Both siteAddress and siteDirectory must be
set at the same time.
'geronimo:geronimo-demo:war:1.1'
- Missing 'siteDirectory': Both siteAddress and siteDirectory must be
set at the same time.
I'm not sure how to address the problem since these are artifacts
have been released. I can fix them going forward but I don't think
there is a way to fix a broken artifact like this. I would like to
ammend our release procedures to make sure that we have valid poms.
This may not be an issue going forward since we migrated to M2.
I guess the first question is do we have a way to fix these artifacts
in the M1 repo since they've been released. My thought is no but
hopefully somone else will have a better answer :)
Matt Hogstrom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
Matt Hogstrom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
