Hi Jason, Apologies for the delayed reply - been a little busy of recent and just catching up on my inbox. What's the plan here, to consolidate maven-artifact between 2.0.x and 2.1.x? Sounds good to me. The work I did on MNG-612 is branched off 2.0.x at the moment.
Let me know if I can help. Although my free time is a little limited at the moment, I'd like to see a conclusion to MNG-612. Cheers, Mark On 21/08/2007, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark, > > If you are going to be around today I was going to apply some patches > and do some fixes but I wanted to get some feedback about attempting > to use the same separate code now in maven-artifact. It would be far > better to use the same code for both 2.0.x and 2.1.x and I don't > believe they are wildly divergent at this point. We just need to make > sure that anything using the resolver directly or the repository > metadata still gets everything it needs from the unified maven-artifact. > > We're going to end up with two code lines to maintain but sharing > maven-artifact (and possibly the container) would make it much easier. > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder and PMC Chair, Apache Maven > jason at sonatype dot com > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
