On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Brian Fox <bri...@infinity.nu> wrote:
> projects to produce proper releases. I think to do it and avoid conflicts
> with any existing profiles, I would change the profile name from "release"
> to "apache-release" and activate that by default. Does anyone see any
> downsides to this?"
I would, if it where: The apache-release profile doesn't contain an
activation section. My understanding is that means it is *not* turned
on by default, is it? (And rightly so, because I wouldn't want to run
javadoc with any build.)
I am also not so sure about the change of profile name. The argument
to avoid conflicts doesn't apply, IMO: Nobody needs to choose the new
parents. I also do think that we should demonstrate best practices,
which includes uniformity: Choose common profile names and depart from
them only if necessary, not vice versa.
I am -0 (non-binding) on these changes.
Jochen
--
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my
telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out
how to use my telephone.
-- (Bjarne Stroustrup,
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#really-say-that
My guess: Nokia E50)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
