On 05/07/2008, at 1:51 AM, Oleg Gusakov wrote:
John - are you looking into this? Need it resolved for MNG-3185
I've done it in the way John was suggesting - it's not the perfect
solution but it's the best one available I think.
I stumbled upon an API regression that breaks one of servicemix's
plugins in the process (MARTIFACT-27). I'm not going to make it to the
end of this tennis match, so I'm going to bed for now :)
If there aren't any other takers on this I can take a look tomorrow. I
think it'd be worth running clirr on this too - but it'll require some
fiddling since the artifact has changed and been merged.
Cheers,
Brett
Thanks,
Oleg
Brett Porter wrote:
On 04/07/2008, at 3:40 AM, John Casey wrote:
Not to distract from the higher-level discussion, but I'd like to
get into the nuts and bolts of MARTIFACT-25 a bit...in case
someone beats me to it.
We introduced a properties file that tracks resolution attempts
for artifacts that weren't found on the remote repository, and I'd
like to see if we can reuse that file/concept/code to handle
artifacts that don't have accompanying POMs on the remote repo.
It's a similar concept, so the two should dovetail relatively
well, and require little code to accomplish the fix.
This makes sense to me. So continue to expand on the update check
manager to handle this case?
The other alternative - which at one point we were doing - is to
write out the stub POM into the local repository and retain that.
It would simplify the code, but muddies the local repo content.
I believe these have the same net effect, in that the artifact is
never resolved a second time. Is that correct?
The way I see it, the biggest hurdle for this issue is creating a
[set of] good tests to circumscribe the issue and make sure it
doesn't regress later.
I don't think there's too many variations - the problem is only
with missing POM files, right?
Cheers,
Brett
My $0.02.
-john
Brett Porter wrote:
Hi all,
As I indicated a couple of weeks back, moving towards a 2.1 alpha
release, I was looking at releasing an alpha of maven-artifact.
Brian was able to locate the issue he was referring to a couple
of weeks back about re-resolving (now MARTIFACT-25), so I've
postponed.
Once that's fixed, I think there should be no reason not to
proceed with a release based on the thread we had back then.
Are there any other issues that anyone sees as blocking moving
forward with a release?
I've done all the testing I was planning to already. Oleg, did
you want to take this release, or shall I go ahead after that
issue is sorted?
Cheers,
Brett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
John Casey
Developer, PMC Member - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org)
Blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/buildchimp/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
