Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002, Guillaume Rousse wrote:
>
> So we now have three proposed ways forward:
>
> > > Option 1.1
> > > Each project put's their jar's back in - but
> > > according to the guidelines below.
> > >
> > > Option 2.2
> > > We create a 'xml-third-party' repository for
> > > all the third party jar's. Following the
> > > guide lines below.
> > >
> > > So we keep all 3rd party and alien code in
> > > one place.
> >
> > Option 2.3:
> > Don't import any jar back into the cvs, but fills a
> complete and exact dependency list -)
>
> Opinions ?
+1 for 2.3, but I'm not a committer. Reason: Since there is no way to
tell which version exactly such a third-party jar is, 2.3 sounds like
the best solution. If you can throw in exact versions and have also the
possibility of including several versions of the same .jar into CVS
(which should be no problem) I'll change my vote to a +1 for 2.2, but
use 2.3 to address the correct version of the .jar ("Go get them from
CVS this way: (explanation)").
Best regards,
Martin Stricker
--
Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/
Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
