On 08/09/2010, at 11:48 PM, [email protected] wrote:

> Author: bentmann
> Date: Wed Sep  8 13:48:04 2010
> New Revision: 995057
> 
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=995057&view=rev
> Log:
> [MNG-4452] Metadata for snapshots should include classifier

I've been back and forward on this today... re-reading the associated thread, 
there were differing opinions about reusing the last snapshot version vs. 
having distinct ones per derived artifact.

There's some potential problems with diverging versions:
- it isn't clear which "match up" to the same source tree any more
- likewise, it isn't apparent that build 2 of a POM would be used with build 1 
of a classifier artifact, when there's a matching build 1 for the pom too.
- Deployment by Maven 3 clients will also make it only consumable with Maven 3 
clients. You end up with a top level snapshot version for #2, and #1 not being 
found when searched for. Same result as attempting this with Maven 2, but maybe 
some potential for confusion.

They aren't blockers - the first two are cosmetic, and the latter requires a 
compatibility warning similar to the one for repository managers.

After some thinking, it seems justified to avoid the difficulty of reliably 
sequencing the alignment of the snapshot version, and for a longer term 
direction of making them have more distinct metadata. Is that the same 
conclusion you drew? Any other issues or caveats folks can see here?

I've added some text to the compat page along these lines in the mean time.

FWIW, I'm still of the opinion that extensions to the metadata should come in 
the form of a new file that supplants both the use of the POM and old metadata 
for clients that support it, and can be managed for compatibility. But I know 
that discussion had been deferred until 3.1, so I'll keep holding onto it...

- Brett

--
Brett Porter
[email protected]
http://brettporter.wordpress.com/





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to