iirc i "forked" create-package to create-content-package and create-iisApp-package
create-content-package should be the "old" behavior… Am 08.11.2012 um 14:35 schrieb Brett Porter <[email protected]>: > Hi Lars, > > You might have missed this because of the original subject - any thoughts? > > On 26/09/2012, at 3:01 PM, Brett Porter <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Lars, >> >> I'm looking into the test failures, and this commit broke the existing POMs >> that referred to 'create-package': >> >> On 4 May 2012 17:18, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Author: lcorneliussen >> Date: Fri May 4 07:18:12 2012 >> New Revision: 1333788 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1333788&view=rev >> Log: >> [NPANDAY-488] Packaging for Web Applications (also Azure Web Roles) >> [NPANDAY-563] Generic MSDeploy synchronization mojo >> >> o support for iisApp packaging and deployment >> >> It seems to me that this could be better achieved by keeping create-package, >> and adding a parameter to determine what the source provider is, rather than >> subclassing the mojo (as the subclasses don't add any different >> configuration arguments). Given that application-maven-plugin and >> azure-maven-plugin both use create-package, the consistency might be good to >> keep too. >> >> WDYT? >> >> - Brett >> >> -- >> Brett Porter >> http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ >
