Noel J. Bergman wrote:
4 days, 1 answer :-(
Try to be more clear about what you are proposing.
Sorry, I don't know how to make it more clear: I just reread it and I
don't know what to add. Is there any specific point you don't understand?
Noel: can you please change the svn notification so that it works on the
full james repository? If you have specific options it would be good if
server commits had the server-dev reply-to and the other had the general
reply-to.
That does not seem appropriate.
It appears that you are proposing a Maven repository. Aside from my
continued opposition to supporting Maven repositories until Maven
authenticates their downloads, such repositories are supposed to be
coordinated ASF-wide via the repository@ mailing list. I'm not at all sure
that what you propose is according to ASF policy.
Can you point us to the policy that block us from creating a folder in
the repository and put there the libraries our projects need to be
build? I think we already do that in the lib folder of james/server,
don't we?
This is a proposal to be able to make a jspf and mime4j release.
If you have an alternative proposal you're welcome: I don't think that
the alternative proposal could be "don't release jspf/mime4j", so I
would be happy to understand what can we do.
I believe other ASF projects have releases based on maven2 and uses the
ibiblio repository for this. My proposal has been studied and done
because of your concern. I did my homework. Stop.
we should introduce a james project third party library repository
where we'll include every "non-apache" library used by our releases.
We should NOT do so except in conjunction with such an effort on an ASF-wide
basis. We already have enough problems with abuse of the ASF
infrastructure. Once again, the appropriate place to discuss repositories
is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This discussions are already in progress. The final solution will
probably need a new maven version, and much more discussions.. We're
probably few (or many) months far away from an ASF-wide solution, and in
the mean time I believe we have to find an interim solution.
As a sidenote I would prefer a structure where we have
trunk/branches/tags at the top
Subversion 101: A {ttb} structure is associated with each independently
releasable artifact.
You should better tell us what you prefer.
I don't see why "Subversion 101" should be taken as "the truth" ;-)
Btw this is a sidenote and not part of this proposal. So let's ignore it
by now.
Stefano
