:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: April 24, 2007 10:49 PM
To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Artifact names
Personally, I think both are valuable as they serve
different needs
for different development environments.
I agree completely. Just wondering if we should be publishing
Subject: RE: Artifact names
Personally, I think both are valuable as they serve
different needs
for different development environments.
I agree completely. Just wondering if we should be publishing
the tarball
via
mvn.
-Patrick
--
Patrick Linskey
BEA Systems, Inc
the tarball).
Assuming this is the right way to go, where would be put the
tarball?
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: April 24, 2007 10:49 PM
To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Artifact names
Personally, I think both
24, 2007 10:49 PM
To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Artifact names
Personally, I think both are valuable as they serve
different needs
for different development environments.
I agree completely. Just wondering if we should be publishing
the tarball
via
mvn
+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
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
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
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Artifact names
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
then local repo - a
lot of wasted space if not absolutely necessary.
Phill
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Linskey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: April 24, 2007 10:49 PM
To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Artifact names
Personally, I think both are valuable
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 (
,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 8:34 AM
To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Artifact names
Hi,
I'm
Michael-
I personally think that keeping -project- in the artifact zip name
is tolerable. I too had looked around (albeit briefly) for a solution
to this a while ago, and found none.
Once OpenJPA is out of incubation and we are deploying releases to
the Apache mirror system, we'll
received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Dick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 8:34 AM
To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Artifact names
Hi,
I'm hitting a bit
You're right, if / when we bypass the deploy phase and execute scp (or
something similar) ourselves then it'll be easy to put in the renaming
logic.
Thanks Patrick and Marc,
On 4/11/07, Marc Prud'hommeaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael-
I personally think that keeping -project- in the
14 matches
Mail list logo
