how ever, I am not keen with codehaus-parent name since it is should
be one lever up rather than maintained by MOJO
how about
plugin-parent
pom.xml
mojo-parent
pom.xml
both is under org.codehaus.mojo groupId
-Dan
On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Dan Tran <[email protected]> wrote:
> this is messy, but here it goes
>
> codehaus-parent
> pom.xml
> mojo-parent
> pom.xml
>
> both are released the same time. codehaus-parent has most of every
> thing, mojo-parent, has mojo's specific like site, scm, etc
> + noRepository rule
>
> any one can use codehaus-parent at their own risk, but I am very
> confident codehaus-parent will work well since it is tested
> by many of its mojo-parent's sub projects
>
> thoughts?
>
> -Dan
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Lee Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Dan wrote:
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I think a "codehaus-parent" would be a good idea.
>>>>
>>>> But remember that the "codehaus-parent" would have to enforce the
>>>> noRepositories rule too (or else codehaus would have to stop pushing
>>>> repository.codehaus.org to repo1.maven.org
>>>
>>> the enforcement of noRepositories is how the debate started. and
>>> there fore no point for seperation
>>
>> To Dan's point, "plugin-parent" would essentially be "codehaus-parent"
>> without the addition of the noRepositories rule.
>>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> But remember that the "codehaus-parent" would have to enforce the
>>> noRepositories rule too (or else codehaus would have to stop pushing
>>> repository.codehaus.org to repo1.maven.org
>>
>> Isn't this the mojo community supporting the maven community and an example
>> of supporting a wider audience than just the mojo community?
>>
>> What would be the negative effect of discontinuing the push to
>> repo1.maven.org?
>>
>> Thanks for your thoughts in advance.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
