The 1.2 faces plugin was *almost* OK for use on the 1.1 branch (small TLD validity issue). I've fixed that up, and tested building 1.0.2 with the 1.2.2 plugins. All seems OK. So I'd like the next step to be:
(1) moving the "1.2.2 plugins" branch to a new trunk, something like: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/branches/1.2.2-branch/plugins becomes http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad-maven/trunk (2) Reversioning these maven plugins as "1.0.3-SNAPSHOT" (3) Deleting the plugin implementations from the trinidad trunk (4) Moving the trinidad trunk from trunk/trinidad/ to just trunk We could (and should) look at moving trinidad-maven to the overall myfaces maven after this, but this would all clear up our build strategy quite a bit, I think. -- Adam On 8/25/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think Gary means > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/maven/ > ... along with the other myfaces maven plugins. > > My main concerns about moving our plugins over to > the myfaces/maven directory are: > - The i18n and xrts plugins are somewhat Trinidad-specific > - We (currently) need 1.2 branches of the faces and tagdoc plugins. > > Though this suggests another task - we should see how much > work it would be to make the 1.0.2 core run against the current > "1.2" plugins - I think the 1.2 faces plugin still has a mode for > generating 1.1 components/etc. This'd get us out of the game of > releasing separate 1.0.x and 1.2.x plugins, which'd be a big > improvement! > > -- Adam > > > > On 8/25/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Let me think about this, but I tried to move the JDEV plugin to maven > > plugins, no luck so far.... > > > > > > On 8/26/07, Gary VanMatre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > > > From: "Adam Winer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Today, our repository looks like: > > > > trunk > > > > trinidad > > > > plugins > > > > > > > > branches > > > > trinidad-xyz-branch > > > > trinidad > > > > plugins > > > > etc.... > > > > > > > > tags > > > > maven-plugin-parent-1... > > > > trinidad-1... > > > > > > > > What's weird here is that we release and tag the plugins independently > > > > of the core, but we still maintain the trunk and branches with these two > > > > together. > > > > > > > > Going forward, I suspect we'll want the ability to do quick releases > > > > of the core without touching the plugins. (I'm tempted to do a 1.0.3 > > > > release in the near future.) But as long as our trunk repository is > > > > what it is, that doesn't seem that feasible. And I don't see any reason > > > > why we shouldn't be able to do a quick plugins release to resolve > > > > any Myfaces Core issues without touching the rest of Trinidad. > > > > > > > > So: my proposal is that we should redo the repos to be: > > > > > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/core > > > > trunk > > > > branches > > > > tags > > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/myfaces/trinidad/plugins > > > > trunk > > > > branches > > > > tags > > > > > > > > ... and let the two release independently. There still > > > > would be cases (potentially many) where we have to > > > > release plugins, then the core, in lockstep. This would > > > > have been true for 1.0.1 and 1.0.2, for instance. But it'd > > > > definitely better reflect our tagging strategy. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe the trinidad plugins should be move to myfaces/maven since JSF 1.2 > > > has a dependency? > > > > > > > > > > -- Adam > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > > > > -- > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > further stuff: > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org > > >
