Bryan Kearney wrote:
Aidan Skinner wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:50 PM, Rafael Schloming <[email protected]>
wrote:
I'm not sure how solvable this problem really is. The fundamental
issue seems to be that maven users want the canonical qpid
dependencies specified in terms of maven repos, whereas we need the
canonical qpid dependencies to be whatever is checked into svn.
I don't think there needs to be a conflict between these.
It seems like one way or another we'll need to maintain an extra non
canonical set of dependency metadata in order to produce meaningful
poms.
I think we can use ivy to avoid having duplicate metadata.
I think a better way to address this issue is to simply produce plain
old jars from the main build and then provide a contrib area for
maven users to donate poms for the qpid artifacts they use.
I think we'll have poms that rot, and that's (IMHO) worse than just
not offering them in the first place. It also precludes the ability to
produce -SNAPSHOT versions if we ever decide to produce regular builds
(which is another can of worms completely).
It would either lead to rot, or folks saying that the maven builds are
forks/not official.
If it really leads to rot, then I think that's a sign that there aren't
enough interested maven users for us to worry about it, and conversely,
if there are enough interested maven users then I don't see how the poms
would be able to rot.
As for the maven builds being forks or unofficial, I don't see how they
could be considered either if they're using exactly the same jars we
ship and this is verifiable via digital signature.
--Rafael
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
