Le 13 sept. 2013 19:00, "sebb" <seb...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > On 12 September 2013 21:52, Baptiste Mathus <m...@batmat.net> wrote: > > 2013/9/12 sebb <seb...@gmail.com> > > > >> On 12 September 2013 14:52, Arnaud Héritier <aherit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On 10 September 2013 16:33, Daniel Kulp <dk...@apache.org> wrote: > >> >> >
> >> > Like we already say I think we aren't convinced about this because it > >> will > >> > imply to recopy these files across ~50 projects (plugins, shared libs) > >> and > >> > thus update them the day we'll decide/need to do it. That's why we always > >> > prefered to bundle them at build time. > >> > >> The point is: > >> the N&L files should be at the top-level of SCM. > >> That is because SCM URLs are published, so the readers need to know > >> the what the license conditions are. > >> > > > > Wasn't it explained that SCM is actually a convenience, and that only the > > released source tarballs would actually matter here? > > It's not the case that SCM is only a convenience; the SCM locations > are published to end-users on the web-site and in the POMs. > > And the SCM is anyway public. Well, according to this thread http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-dev/201308.mbox/%3CCA+nPnMwE=ON4AfAmFq3dvnpMdcsKt0u3G=RYvQWiZsmL=ea...@mail.gmail.com%3Eand Stephen's answer, that was my understanding and I don't remember someone pointing to somewhere at apache docs stating this is actually wrong. > > In this case, Arnaud's point about only adding them at build time is really > > valid here. > > Not sure what you are referring to here, but the build is not relevant > to this discussion. Once again, in the above linked thread, my readings make me think there were already answers from pmc that you would then have to "agree to disagree" on this point. And this is also the understanding I have from last Arnaud's answer above. > >> > >> The fact that having the N&L files there would likely have ensured > >> they were in the source archive is an added bonus; it's not the > >> primary reason for having them at the top-level of SCM. > >> > > > > In the source, but possibly different in many places and having to maintain > > their sameness, that's again Arnaud's point. > > > > As an external observer and a developer, not duplicating files in many > > places as they should really be the same seem quite a sound PMC choice to > > me. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >