Brett Porter wrote:
Is there any scope to revisit collaborating on the metadata? I know you
ruled it out back in 2005, but you've identified that getting
contributed metadata in has been a problem for Ivy, something Maven is
well familiar with and are (slowly) addressing and making good progress
(especially with tooling in the area now). Seems like a good opportunity.
Maven is getting into it's next big development cycle so
additions/changes to the POM and revisions to the way the dependencies
are resolved are both up for grabs and high on my list of things to do.
I have some early opinions about the current data, though not with any
scientific evidence to back it up.
Is it worth discussing? Incidentally, I think it solves your
configuration vs configuration naming issue too :)
Cheers,
Brett
Seems to me the first things we could do is
1. have an <ivy:topom> task to create a Pom from an ivy file, given
mappings from configs to maven states.
2. Agree on a set of default configurations for ivy artifacts (and the
new pom files) which we are all happy with . Something like
compile
test
minimal
standalone
full
3. Make changes to the pom files/ivy xml files that we all think
metadata should have. My suggestions are
-include information about who wrote the pom, so you know who to talk to
-include timestamp info.
4. tweak both apps to fix the assumption that published metadata is
perfect. Both systems, by default, should check for updates to the
metadata on a regular basis, because it does take a while to stabilise.
