Ralph Goers wrote:
Mark Lundquist wrote:
It's not. Did you read the scenario from my original post? I don't
think SNAPSHOT is even in view here.
Yes, I read it.
IIUC, SNAPSHOT is concerned w/ the relationship btwn. remote and local
repositories. That's not in view here.
Do you think it's currently possible to build two different instances
of a project (e.g. one w/ local modifications and one without) on the
same machine without them stomping on each other in the repository,
(a) without touching any other controlled resource (such as a pom :-)
not directly related to the modification in question (i.e., that I
would not include in a patch file), and (b) in a location-based way
(i.e. that doesn't require me to remember to say some kind of "maven
-Dblah.blah"? If so, please tell me how! :-)
I would think that using SNAPSHOT in conjunction with the -s option
would do what you want.
I'm not at all convinced :-). You will have to spell it out for me
blow-by-blow and explain mechanistically just how my problem is solved
"using SNAPSHOT in conjunction with the -s option".
And even if it could be... it still doesn't satisfy my requirement that
the solution be location-based, i.e. "set-and-forget" vs.
invocation-dependent. "-s" isn't going to cut it, it has to be plain
old "mvn" everywhere.
Yes, you have to modify the POM, but you are
supposed to modify the pom when you are making changes to a project.
No, no, no! :-) Let's say I'm starting work on some change set that I
plan to submit as a patch. If those changes in and of themselves entail
a change to the pom (e.g., a new module, or a new dependency, or a
different version of a dependency) then I will change the pom as part of
my patch. If my changes don't require that, then I absolutely *should
not* have to make any local tweaks to the pom just for the sake of
having this build not interfere with other builds of the project on my
local machine. To say it a different way: the changes I make to the pom
should be exactly the changes (if any) that I would submit as part of my
patch, and no more! Didn't you read the paragraph in my original post
that ends with "et unmaintanable cetera"? :-)
It's like we're talking past each other... I've said "I need feature F
because there's no way to do X except in this fiddly, error-prone way",
and you are saying "well, you don't need feature F because there is
already a way to do it, albeit fiddly and error-prone". That's the
whole point, that is why I need the feature :-)
best regards,
—ml—
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
