I would be -1 to change the standard naming of <name>-<version>.<extension>.
Could you explain why you think it doesn't belong to the POM? If it's not put in the POM (i.e. if we use properties), who will be the owner of them? driver.properties (i.e the core)? Or some other plugins (a deliverable plugin, the release plugin, etc)? Thanks -Vincent > -----Original Message----- > From: Rafal Krzewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 12 November 2003 11:43 > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Re: [Proposal] Project deliverables definition in POM > > Vincent Massol wrote: > > > <artifactId>-<version>.jar > > <artifactId>-src-<version>.zip > > <artifactId>-javadoc-<version>.zip > > etc > > > > We *could* standardize on artifact names of course. The <artifactId> > > could be optional and default to ${pom.artifactId}: > > tweaking the above a bit: > > <artifactId>-<version>.jar > <artifactId>-<version>-src.zip > <artifactId>-<version>-javadoc.zip > > or as recently advertised: > > <artifactId>-<version>-debug.jar > <artifactId>-<version>-debug-src.jar > > Such 'extended file extensions' would simplify name building in plugins. > > BTW. I really like the idea of having the following: > > maven.deliverable.main=jar > maven.deliverable.all=jar,source,javadoc > > Will definetely help organize things. > > R. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
