Adam R. B. Jack wrote:
Agreed.
I think the real challenge is at the project level, projects need to
establish naming consistent with their Umbrella group, this is a real
growing pain at this point, I suspect eventually the entire Jakarta
Commons will need to migrate to
Brett Porter wrote:
Yup, I think we need ASF-wide artefact ids (within group
ids). I'd like to think the community and/or communities can
come to agreement on what the values are, and if that means
defaulting to what Maven/Ibiblio already have, then so be it.
Consistency is the key more than
Agreed.
I think the real challenge is at the project level, projects need to
establish naming consistent with their Umbrella group, this is a real
growing pain at this point, I suspect eventually the entire Jakarta
Commons will need to migrate to
Agreed.
I think the real challenge is at the project level, projects need to
establish naming consistent with their Umbrella group, this is a real
growing pain at this point, I suspect eventually the entire Jakarta
Commons will need to migrate to
What I was thinking was that you would generate the build.properties from
the list of gumped projects, rather than dependencies.
Not quite following the distinction, but maybe I am too close to the
currently implementation. Gump has a list of projects it is working on
and/or knows about, and a
What I was thinking was that you would generate the
build.properties
from the list of gumped projects, rather than dependencies.
Not quite following the distinction, but maybe I am too close
to the currently implementation. Gump has a list of projects
it is working on and/or knows
On Fri, 14 May 2004, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry... I didn't realise that gump had a notion of a project that
produces multiple artifacts.
Hmm, commons-logging is built by Maven. Its Ant build file produces
two jars, commons-logging.jar and commons-logging-api.jar - how does
I would suspect that the commons logging ant build.xml file has either
been customized beyond the capabilities of maven, or was never actually
generated from maven.
If I think about this with my Maven hat on, a discrepancy arises.
groupId: commons-logging
artifactId: commons-logging
So, to sum up this point: I think gump should have just one
id for a
project,
What about projects that produce multiple jars?
Sorry... I didn't realise that gump had a notion of a project that produces
multiple artifacts. In maven, project to artifact Id is 1:1, however a
project can
What about projects that produce multiple jars?
Sorry... I didn't realise that gump had a notion of a project that
produces
multiple artifacts. In maven, project to artifact Id is 1:1, however a
project can produce multiple different 'types' of the same artifact (eg,
documentation, jar,
10 matches
Mail list logo
