I agree with Brett, Gilles, Daniel. Gilles, thanks for that reference, I think we should all learn from that!
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Daniel Kulp <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 that decision is obsolete?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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
