Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 7 Jan 07, at 12:30 PM 7 Jan 07, Fabrizio Giustina wrote:
On 1/7/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6 Jan 07, at 1:45 PM 6 Jan 07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> MREPOSITORY-2 project.scm.connection should not be required for
> bundle-create
>
Why not?
the project could not have a public repository, there are projects
that only distribute binary/source jars without having an accessible
scm at all.
Can you give me an example of an OSS project submitting something to the
central repository that doesn't have a public repository? How can you
operate as an OSS project without a public repository?
There are already several examples on that there. There is nothing in
the OSS licenses that requires the source to be publicly available all
the time, only the parts that you distribute.
It doesn't make sense that repository:bundle-create require it to
work, also because it's not really useful for users
It's definitely useful for users to have the location of the source
repository. Especially from IDEs if you grab a remote POM and want to
create a project.
(on the other hand
license info was not mandatory, and that's something that can always
be filled and that is definitively useful).
The license file was, but the element being specified is better. Some
form of license information was mandatory.
I'm -1 to letting people submit without that information. Your
justification is unsatisfactory as is.
How about just having a big, fat warning about the POM not having SCM
information? Then it's up t the uploader to take action if it *should*
have SCM (like all apache, codehaus and sourceforge projects should have).
--
Trygve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
