I think having it even if over time it rots, is better than having nothing to start with. Bottom line is that we will want this in central and will look to automate enforcement, so the bundle plugin should line up with that process to simplify life for everyone.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Jesse McConnell <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 decision is obsolete?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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
