On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:27 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:
Hmm. I wonder if we're really using Maven repositories correctly.
Do we
need our dist to be in Maven at all?
We don't need to. It was just easy to set up that way.
I do think that we should have something that's easy to depend on that
pulls in the openjpa-persistence-jdbc module, without making people
have
to know about that level of modularity detail.
Why can't they just depend on openjpa-all? That brings everything in...
-Patrick
--
Patrick Linskey
BEA Systems, Inc.
______________________________________________________________________
_
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may
contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and
affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the
individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended
recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return
this
by email and then delete it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eddie O'Neil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 7:05 PM
To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Artifact names
+1 -- I'd prefer to have the binary / source uber-archives
outside of the Maven repro, though that's more due to
convention than anything else.
I agree that it's not worth worrying about this for 0.9.7.
Cheers,
Eddie
On 4/24/07, Michael Dick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm finally getting back to this thread, sorry for the delay.
I got a similar answer from the maven mailing list. Their stance is
that the maven repository is for artifacts which are used by maven,
which wouldn't be the same as a final destination for our
distribution.
I'm in favor of moving the source and binary archives to a
different
location, if there's a good spot available to us. Does
anyone object
to putting the releases somewhere outside of a maven repository?
I don't think this is urgent for the 0.9.7 release since we
can't get
rid of the ugly -project names now, but it might be nice to have a
solution for when OpenJPA graduates.
On 4/12/07, Dain Sundstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In Geronimo, we publish to the maven repo as maven likes,
but when
we publish to the apache distribution mirrors (for website
downloads), we name the files as we like.
-dain
On Apr 11, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Michael Dick wrote:
Hi,
I'm hitting a bit of a snag with the staging repository for
release 0.9.7.
Recently we made changes to remove -project from our
the zip file
names. The problem is that the maven install and deploy goals
ignore the names we provide and generate their own names (
openjpa-project-0.9.7-incubating-xxx.zip).
I searched through the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
archives and it turns out this is a fairly common problem -
usually resulting in a response of "working as
designed". Here's
an example
http://www.nabble.com/Installation-and-deployment-
tf1449780s177.html#a3916784
Does anyone vehemently object to putting -project back into the
names for the 0.9.7 release?
The only other way I know of to fix the names that get deployed
would be to change the artifactId in the pom files (basically
switch openjpa with openjpa-project). Switching the names will
impact anyone who has a dependency on the base openjpa project.
They'll have to update the version number anyway, but it will
still be a little confusing if they used to depend on
openjpa-0.9.6 and now they depend on openjpa-project-0.9.7.
Thanks,
--
-Michael Dick
--
-Michael Dick
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may
contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries
and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary,
copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you
are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in
error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
