On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Benjamin Bentmann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
>
>
> > My experiences with the release of the Mojo Parent POM 17 make me propose
> to move the parent stuff into a dedicated directory like illustrated below:
> >
> > trunk/
> > mojo/
> > mojo-parent/ <- Parent POM in here, please
> >
>
> So far, we have
>
> +1: B. Bentmann, P. Gier, R. Piéroni, D. Tran
add me in
> for the move in general.
>
>
>
> > Just in case we can agree on that directory move, some name proposals for
> the directory:
> > a) mojo
> > b) mojo-parent
> > c) parent
> >
>
> a) D. Tran
> b) P. Gier, R. Piéroni
>
>
> I would prefer some more responses on this before I go ahead. Aside from
> personal preferences, does anybody know of outstanding Maven issues that
> would haunt us if we break with the convention of using the artifact id for
> the directory name (e.g. inheritance problems)?
I try to avoid not following the conventions, as the problems that can
appear later when using a "buggy" plugin.
Why can't we move the POM under mojo-parent AND rename the parent
artifact to mojo-parent ?
Doesn't that solve everybody's problem ?
Projects would be forced to change their POM, but they already have to
change the version number...
If that's possible, then +1 for b).
Jerome
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
