putting repository@ back on the list - gmail tends to drop lists
unless you reply to all (hope this is what you intended).
> Seems a reasonable first step. However it seems a little fragile if a
> project changes artifact names or splits an existing artifact. e.g. if
> commons-jelly splits into jelly-api and jelly-impl, at least with the
> existing structure all artifacts of a given type are together and can
> be easily seen. Once the directory structure changes in the new
> layout, browsing will be difficult.
I'm not sure what you mean: the existing one has commons-jelly-* JARS,
then commons-jelly-api-* and commons-jelly-impl-*. The new one would
have a commons-jelly subdirectory, a commons-jelly-api and
commons-jelly-impl subdirectory. They are all still side by side in
Still, an archival policy is a good idea so that commons-jelly can be
removed from here so people know what the current artifacts are (while
still being able to get the old ones).
I think there's merit to having 3 repositories: snapshot, archive and
current (current is not just the latest release, but all supported
releases). Equivalent to cvs.apache, archive.apache and www.apache
Each can have different policies, but a common access technique.