The main issue I have with releasing a plugin @ mojo is that webdav deployment of a site does not work through a http proxy
2009/6/10 Dan Tran <[email protected]>: > I dont know when was the last time i have a problem with releasing a > plugin at mojo :-) It is 'flawless' :-) > > -Dan > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Paul Gier<[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't know if I've ever seen Maven work "flawlessly with ease". ;) >> >> Dan Tran wrote: >>> >>> I would suggest to add it via a profile activation at release:perform, >>> once it is proved to work flawlessly with ease. I am sure people will >>> not mind use it >>> >>> -D >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:18 AM, Paul Gier<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Within Red Hat it's a requirement that anything shipped with our >>>> products, >>>> including thirdparty jars, is rebuilt from source. So that's part of my >>>> reasoning behind wanting this. I realize that is not a requirement at >>>> most >>>> organizations, but it still seems better to have it available. >>>> >>>> The ideal solution IMO would be if the same jar/zip could be used for IDE >>>> integration and would contain the full sources for rebuilding, but I >>>> don't >>>> think that's possible. >>>> >>>> We don't have to require that the full source zips are uploaded. Just >>>> making it recommended and easy to do is enough IMO. >>>> >>>> Brent Atkinson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> For what it's worth, I agree with Dan. >>>>> I see the argument with change affecting SCM systems, but when you >>>>> change >>>>> systems you're making a specific choice to break something where history >>>>> matters. If you're porting history, the identifier may change, but you >>>>> should still have the released code. If you're managing things >>>>> appropriately, you also have the binary dependencies. Bundling what >>>>> amounts >>>>> to a source rpm (zip in this case) for each release feels like a lazy, >>>>> brute-force source management method. I suppose if you have the >>>>> resources to >>>>> throw at it, it can save you some headaches. Requiring it seems a bit >>>>> strong, especially if the safety net serves as a rationalization for >>>>> quickly >>>>> migrating to the SCM du jour. That decision should still carry a >>>>> considerable burden with it. >>>>> Maybe I'm missing the point? >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>>>>>> Dan Tran <[email protected]> 6/9/2009 6:43 PM >>> >>>>> >>>>> Is this really necessary? For me as long as I have the source [1], >>>>> that is all i want. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/codehaus/mojo/build-helper-maven-plugin/1.3/ >>>>> >>>>> -D >>>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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 >> >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
