On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 14:49, Brett Porter wrote: > Hi Jason, > > I thought the best was that the current one was always o.a.m.model.*, > and all the historical ones were included with package name. > ie in maven-model-4.0.0, there is just o.a.m.model; in maven-model-4.0.1 > there is o.a.m.model.* and o.a.m.model.v400.*.
Right, that's the plan. > An exception is for the v3.0.0 series. I'd like to use o.a.m.project as > it requires fewer breaking changes to Maven 1.x. That is what is in > maven-model-1.1-SNAPSHOT at the moment (which should really be renamed > maven-model-3.0.0). That's cool. It's easy in modello now to control the package naming. > Here is my last post to m2-dev about this, which outlines what I think > needs to be done for a release: > > - changes to modello so we can use the .project package instead of > hacking it at release time as I have done Not sure what that means. It's easy now to change the name of package. > - verify current mdo still works - the one used on HEAD was pre-modello > refactoring The model was updated to the new format. I'm sure it's not quite right but not a lot of work to update. > - verify the bugs have been fixed WRT properties > - be able to build it with Maven 1.x (ie, revive the jelly modello > plugin, or wrap the mojo in some way) > - generate a parser that uses Xerces so entities and encodings can work > if people choose the slower parser > - ensure generated documentation can be used in m1 > - release it as maven-model-3.0.0 instead of 1.1-SNAPSHOT as I have, > then we can do 3.1.0 for 1.1 as I wanted to make some changes as we've > previously discussed. All fine except for the xerces generated parser. I'd rather put the effort into making the xpp3 parser do entities and encodings. I want to avoid xerces like the plague. > Cheers, > Brett > > Jason van Zyl wrote: > > >Howdy, > > > >There was a post on the user list about some fellow wanting to read in a > >POM so I figured it would be a good opportunity to prepare some examples > >for a maven-model release. > > > >What we are doing now is generating the most current version of the > >model is generated without versioning in the package name, so it's > >something like: > > > >org.apache.maven.model.* > > > >But we can optionally have versioning in the package name: > > > >org.apache.maven.model.v301.* > > > >We have used the versionless variant in the maven-core so that we don't > >have the wrangle version names when we upgrade the model which I like > >but if we are going to make separate utility drops should we release > >them with versioning in the package name? This would be for general use > >like the fellow wants to do on the user list. > > > >So I'm thinking we can always generate releases with versioning in the > >package name and generate the versionless package name for our use in > >maven-core. I guess that brings up the question of how to name the > >artifacts but that's the general notions. Once we figure this out I > >would like to cut a release of maven-model and let folks try it out. > > > >Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://maven.apache.org happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come and sit softly on your shoulder ... -- Thoreau --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
