Tim Anderson wrote:
OK - so it should be at part of the java artifact specifier proposal [1],
or do you envision another layer?
I don't think this is java specific - its software development process
specific. My current thinking is that it is a langauge independent
layer is sufficient (mainly b
org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ASFRepository/JavaArtifacts
[2] http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ASFRepository/URISyntax
[3] to allow for FQDN and reverse FQDN, separated by "/".
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, 14 No
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Tim:
My initial impression is that all the following could be expressed as
part of a spec. one-level-up from the artifact spec. Everything below
is dealing with the notion of the usage of the repository for a
particular purpose - namely the registration of artifacts ari
Tim Anderson wrote:
The URISyntax proposal is silent on how to handle
nightly, release, snapshot, and latest builds.
This should be formalised.
Very nicley thought out proposal.
However first we should decide if we need to do anything with version.
Why can't projects just all there versions
Tim:
My initial impression is that all the following could be expressed as
part of a spec. one-level-up from the artifact spec. Everything below
is dealing with the notion of the usage of the repository for a
particular purpose - namely the registration of artifacts arising from
development pr
