I agree with Brett. Strongly recommend, but not require. Dan
On Wed September 30 2009 12:57:34 am Brett Porter wrote: > I think any rule needs to be enforced on the server side as much as in > the repository plugin too. > > For mine, I think strongly recommending SCM is a good idea, but we do > allow artifacts that are redistributable and not open source and so it > should not be required. If you were to get fancy you could tighten the > requirement for those that specify an open source license. > > You might also consider an associated source bundle in the repository > a suitable replacement for the SCM element? > > Anyway, strongly recommending/defaulting is one thing, but I wouldn't > get into the practice of rejecting things that don't provide it. > > - Brett > > On 30/09/2009, at 6:56 AM, 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. > > > > 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 that decision is obsolete?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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > -- Daniel Kulp [email protected] http://www.dankulp.com/blog --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
