there are certainly benefits to having it in place, I wonder about the scm metadata suffering from bit rot over time as project juggle around stuff in their scm's though..
kind of throws a monkey wrench into the materialization process for projects or dependencies jesse -- jesse mcconnell [email protected] On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 16:06, Jason van Zyl <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2009-09-29, at 1:56 PM, John Casey wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I've been having a conversation with Jason and some others lately about >> the repository plugin, and the fact that it doesn't require the SCM section >> of the POM. POMs with this section missing disable the project >> materialization features that some of the more recent Maven tooling >> (m2eclipse in my personal experience) takes advantage of. >> > > And just as importantly that the build could actually be replicated from the > information in the deployment. Materialization is one great benefit, but > knowing where the source of the artifact came from is actually more > important. It should be a requirement in my opinion. > >> Materialization is a HUGE benefit to developers, as I can testify. IMO, no >> OSS project should publish a POM for upload that doesn't specify an SCM >> location...it's insane to even pretend you have a project without an SCM, >> and if it's an OSS project, that SCM should probably have a public view. I'm >> not sure of the ins and outs of all OSS licensing, or whether a publicly >> available SCM is required for these licenses, but there is a clear benefit >> to having that access. >> >> I've filed http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MREPOSITORY-19 to address what >> Jason and I both consider a shortcoming, but I also noticed >> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MREPOSITORY-2, which originally took this >> requirement out of the plugin. Can we say that the use case driving that >> decision is obsolete? >> >> I'm also working on another approach, a "disableMaterialization" flag that >> would allow the bundling to proceed in spite of missing SCM information. >> However, this is probably over-engineering if we can agree that SCM >> information should be present for anything hosted in central. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -john >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > > Thanks, > > Jason > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Jason van Zyl > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
