I already voted for the 199, but for the record I'm doing it again here.
Alin. On 3/27/07, Richard S. Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stuart, Thanks for your summary. Regarding the suggestion to start with FELIX-199, I think I am in agreement there...and it seems only fair since it is the oldest. :-) Looking that the patch, it appears that most of its major changes are orthogonal to the existing bundle functionality. Thus, I don't see much of an issue in applying the patch. I don't know if we need to bother with a vote on accepting the patch or not...in truth, I don't know the proper process for this. I am included to just see if anyone responds to this thread in a day or so to object and if not, then just apply the patch for FELIX-199. As a test, I wasn't able to apply the latest unified patch that you attached to the JIRA issue, however, Were you able to apply it to the trunk? I also agree that FELIX-218 is reasonably trivial, so that could be applied easily too. I assume that only the last patch is relevant. Since this one is so trivial, I could probably go ahead and apply and close it before we do FELIX-199, then perhaps you could create a new unified patch for 199? -> richard Stuart McCulloch wrote: > Hi folks, > > Currently there are 8 open issues for the maven-bundle-plugin. I've > written up a > short one-line status for each of them (inc. # of votes, whether a > patch exists) > along with a suggested course of action in another table. (see > attached file) > > The suggested actions are all MHO, so apologies if I've misrepresented > any > of the issues, or the patches. Please post a follow-up message > pointing out > any mistakes, updates or alternative suggestions. > > Basically I recommend looking at FELIX-199 first, as it also solves > several > other issues. The one thorny area is over maven dependencies: whether to > get the user to handle this outside in the pom with other plugins, or > to add > options to the bundle plugin for the sake of convenience (FELIX-255/262). >
