Aside from what Jason was talking about, the info in my original email still stands.
All versions of Wagon I tried have the problem of the checksums with wrong permissions. If you are going to use scpexe to deploy, then you need to fix that bug. Note you only need to fix, release, and use the ssh-external provider. - Brett John Casey wrote: > Wait, let's regroup for a second. What _exactly_ is the problem with > scpexe again? If it's just a matter of fixing the file modes for the > checksums, can't we simply make a point of fixing this? I understand > that the ssh/scp wagons have some issues related to Jsch, but this > problem (the file mode issue) doesn't seem that tragic. > > Don't worry, I'm not pushing anything out that doesn't support some form > of SSH deployment. > > I *am* a little confused about all of this, though...my latest 'svn up' > of /components shows 1.0-alpha-5 as the Wagon version in use...is > someone tweaking this pom on localhost to get the newest [unreleased] > versions of Wagon? > > It's critical that we all have access to the intended versions of > supporting libraries, for testing, etc. so if we're hoping to use a new > release of Wagon, we need to bump that version in components/pom.xml. > > I'm using the poms of Maven and Continuum to determine which supporting > projects need a release... > > What's the story? > > -john > > Jason van Zyl wrote: >> Brett Porter wrote: >> >>> Jason van Zyl wrote: >>> >>>> Not being able to use scpexe is a problem as the scp deployment is >>>> broken after the introduction of the directory handling code so maybe >>>> that bit should be rolled back in wagon for the time being until it can >>>> be tested properly. If deployment with scpexe is not viable and the scp >>>> method doesn't work then we definitely have a problem. >>> >>> >>> >>> It wasn't the directory handling code, it was any number of other >>> changes made in the last wagon release. The previous release also had >>> problems - in fact in my environment the current scp:// works *better* >>> than the previous release. >>> >>> We need to do a lot more work on this, no doubt - but rolling back >>> doesn't solve any problems here. >> >> >> I will try a deploy using scp, but it was not working at all and if >> scpexe is problematic what do you propose as a solution? It's not just >> for our deployments but it creates a potentially unworkable situation >> for deployments in general. >> >>> - Brett >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
