Vincent Massol wrote: > I would be -1 to change the standard naming of > <name>-<version>.<extension>.
I think its a minor change if you look at it in the following way: <name>-<version><extension> old extensions: .jar .zip .war ... new extensions: .jar -debug.jar -source.zip ... > Could you explain why you think it doesn't belong to the POM? I have no strong opinion on that. Putting in into properties seemed natural, by analogy to multiproject. Besides the current policy of attribute-less XML in the pom makes it look sooo awkward... <deliverables> <deliverable>jar</deliverable> <deliverable>source</deliverable> <deliverable>javadoc</deliverable> <main-deliverable>jar</main-deliverable> </deliverables> vs. <deliverables> <deliverable type="jar" main="true"/> <deliverable type="source"/> <deliverable type="javadoc"/> </deliverables> > 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)? A plugin I think, not sure about the naming though. I imagine we could reach a point where most things could be achieved with the following goals: install install-all deploy deploy-all R. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
