after some more thoughts, I now believe noRepo is a VERY good rule to have, and any establishedd maven project should follow this convention. If so , there is no problem to reuse the current mojo-parent
:-) -Dan On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Stephen Connolly <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/12/3 Dan Tran <[email protected]>: >> 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 > > I am not keep on plugin-parent as a name. we'll have to keep fighting > people that think that plugins hosted on mojo should inherit from > plugin-parent rather than mojo-parent. > > Additionally, if you have a distribution management in plugin-parent that > will ultimately result in plugin-parent being pushed to repo1, I would be -1 > unless it has the noRepositories enforcer rule. > > If it is an example of best practice and it is ending up on repo1, it should > enforce the best practices of repo1, i.e. it should help people comply with > the rule for repo1 > (http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html) > > I have other repositories or pluginRepositories listed in my POM, is that a > problem? > > Yes, the central repository must be self contained, which means that all > your dependencies must already be in the central repository. You need to > remove the repositories and pluginRepositories entries and make sure your > project still builds when your local repository cache is empty. > > The only exception allowed is when a dependency can not be distributed from > the central repository due to the license. In that case only the POM for > that dependency is required, listing where the dependency can be downloaded > from. See an example. > > I agree that until now enforcement of this rule has been somewhat lax... > largely because we have not had the tools to enforce the rule... we have the > tools now, so we should use those tools... we cannot just say "well we were > fine until now, let's just continue" as that just means that there are more > invalid artifacts in repo1. > > If you want to campaign for the rules of repo1 to be made more lax and have > the above rule removed, by all means do so, but unless/until the rules of > repo1 are changed, if it is ending up on repo1 and we have control over it, > we should have the noRepositories enforcer rule. > > I agree that the noRepositories rule can be a pain... you need only look at > the pain I have had with vcc.dev.java.net trying to get something that can > be pushed to repo1 and is self-contained and dealing with the absolute mess > that is java.net's maven repositories... > > -Stephen > >> >> 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 >> >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
