On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Rafael Schloming<[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Rafi, we may have folks you are interested in using Qpid (via Maven) but may not have the cycles to contribute/maintain it. IMO the qpid community should maintain the builds without expecting the end users to contribute. Also as Aidan pointed out we need to have the maven artifacts as part of the official release. I haven't used Ivy so I can't comment on it, but I don't think Rafi's idea of having a seperate contrib section for the maven poms will work all though the idea has some merit on paper. > 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] > > -- Regards, Rajith Attapattu Red Hat http://rajith.2rlabs.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation Project: http://qpid.apache.org Use/Interact: mailto:[email protected]
