sorry to bring this back again, the dbunit team which has moved dbunit-maven-plugin from mojo to sourceforge and still use mojo-parent. However, they could not override the site breadcrumb which always has codehaus-->mojo
This is a good example to provide a plugin-parent and mojo-parent pair. Thoughts? -D On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Dan Tran <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
