Hi Matthias, Thanks for putting so clearly what the problem is. The reason we are hesitating here is we don't want to lose the ability to merge patches as fixes are made to both 2.4.x and trunk .... renaming the directories to match the artifacts would have that consequence. I would prefer to save any kind of renaming until a GeoTools 3.x stream.
You are correct that packaging up GeoTools for download has fallen off the radar these days; it is not something any of the core developers use. I had hoped that OSGeo participation would help fund some of those kind of activities; does not looked like that worked out in practice. It looks like GeoServer is being very nice and issuing monthly stable releases as the needs of their project dictate. When I was working on trunk for a commercial project last year releases were also made. Do you have any suggestions on how to fund monthly releases? I think we will need to rollback this "prefix removal" change; and leave it for a later date. Indeed I should of done this already when it had only taken a day of my time. Cheers, Jody > Hi all, > > here is just my USER perspective on the ongoing prefix removal. > > I not use maven for my project(s). I have always had a little ant script for > downloading the required GT jars and dependencies (like uDig did) and have > thrown them in one flat directory too. This has worked nicely so far until > now. > > As expected I run into the same trouble as Jody did today. > > Of course I can rename the artefacs while downloading them with ant. BUT: > Since GT has no more milestone releases and the only thing the end user sees > from the GT2.5 branch are the snapshots there is no way for such end user of > telling which jar is supposed to get which prefix attached in the later > release (gt- or gt2- or gt-lib or gt-xsd or gt-whatsover). You will know but > I don't. > > By the way: I don't know any other project whose jars are named differently > in the maven repositories and in the release ... which is what is intended > currently if I understand the mails correctly. I find this plainly irritating. > > So I wonder: > - Do you really expect every user to use maven and actually build GT? > - Or do you simply not expect end users to use the 2.5 branch at all? > > What about providing a separate location in an online repository where the GT > shapshot jars can be found with names similar to how they will appear in the > final release (i.e not conflicting with each other and other dependencies)? > This would be my idea how to solve this in the most simple way. > > Have a nice weekend. > Matthias Basler > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
