On Mon 07 May 2007 18:40, Wayne Fay wrote: > Any particular reason we can't simply rename one of the plugins > (probably yours since its newer) and just keep both around? > > Then yours can come in as a real "submitted" plugin and you can use > the Mojo SVN and continue discussions on Mojo Dev etc. > > All this talk of replacing one with another, finding out who is using > which, etc just seems like a waste of time, and it obviously isn't > working, as this discussion has been happening for some months now.
Let me rephrase the feedback-request: There are 2 mojo plugins for *the same task*, an older one, currently into the svn, and the newer, based on that old one BUT that new plugin: 1) it were created to overcome the shortcomings of the old, 2) it has been incorporating bug fixes for months, 3) It is easy to specify the desired gwt-version, 4) it has many more real-life features, 5) it is still been improved (i.e perform up-to-date check to avoid cpu-intensive gwt compile, run tomcat embedded to permit remote debuging, etc) 6) it includes some basic test-cases, 7) It provides documentation (sample code and configuration instructions) 8) It provides Archetypes. Both plugins are SNAPSHOTs, and they HAVE NEVER BEEN SUBITTED to any m2 repository. They old one only existed into sandbox svn. So consequently, anyone already using the old one, must have checked-out and compile the src himself! Therefore, i suggest to incorporate the changes of the new pluging by *ovewritting* the old one using a new SNAPSHOT version (i.e 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT), so that anyone wishing to work with both plugins, to be able to do so by explicitly specifying the required version. Strictly personally, i don't see any reason at all to wait for "All this talk of replacing one with another, finding out who is using which, etc". The answer seems to me so obvious...if i had svn access i would have commited these changes a long time ago. Thats my 2cents, Kostis > > Wayne > > On 5/7/07, kristian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > hello, > > > > I am the author of the submitted plugin of > > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MOJO-549 > > which I submitted now half a year ago. > > > > apparently there is at least one person using a similar plugin at > > https://svn.codehaus.org/mojo/trunk/mojo/mojo-sandbox/gwt-maven-plugin/ > > > > more and more people using the plugin from MOJO-549 or from my > > personal subversion. from time to time I attach a new tarball to > > MOJO-549 (with bugfixes and maybe new bugs), but that is not permanent > > solution. > > > > and for me it feels a little odd to have discussions about the plugin > > on the mojo-dev-list, and I fix things in the trunk of my personal > > subversion. I would like to trigger some little discussions, but I am > > hesitated since it does not relate to any mojo project just to a > > "plugin submission". > > > > the subversion plugin binds the plugin to the GWT version and the OS > > type with which the plugin was build. the plugin MOJO-549 . so a > > replacement will affect the users of the subversion plugin. > > > > so the big question is, what the author of the > > https://svn.codehaus.org/mojo/trunk/mojo/mojo-sandbox/gwt-maven-plugin/ > > and the users would say about replacing the subversion version with > > the one from MOJO-549. > > > > please speak out freely what you think and ideas how such a > > replacement can be accomplished. > > > > with best wishes > > Kristian > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from this list please visit: > > > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
