On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Simone Tripodi <[email protected]> wrote: > HI! > > while I see the advantage of having a "all modules" build, at the same > time I wouldn't like to see it driving us the components development. > > I personally still want to share with you my personal vision of Onami > modules as individual components, with their own development lifecycle > and releases. > > So, I think it is good to keep the relativePath, in order to have > working builds, but until we won't make the first stable release of > the parent, in order to drop that reference and consider each module > as individual component. > > Take apache commons as a sample - as pattern, not implementation ;) >
OK, I understand better. So, basically it would mean we would release onami-parent as one of our first components. How far are we with this? Cheers > thanks a lot for keeping things moving forwards! > All the best, > -Simo > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi > http://www.99soft.org/ > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Christian Grobmeier > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> I have added relative paths to the parent poms of some modules, like in >> logging: >> >> <parent> >> <groupId>org.apache.onami</groupId> >> <artifactId>onami-parent</artifactId> >> <version>1-SNAPSHOT-incubating</version> >> <relativePath>../parent</relativePath> >> </parent> >> >> Otherwise it would fail to build from root level. That said I think it >> is not good if one wants to build from a sub module. >> >> Any ideas how we can improve that? >> >> It leads me to the question why we have a separated aggregator from a >> parent pom module. I don't know the benefits, but it feels like we are >> doing a bit too much. Maybe somebody can explain that too me. >> >> Cheers >> Christian >> >> -- >> http://www.grobmeier.de >> https://www.timeandbill.de -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de
