gnore
for .classpath, .project and target folder?
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
-- sent from a wireless device
-Original Message-
From: Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 10:33 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: [discuss]
:33 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Organizing Wicket Stuff / Regular Release Schedule?
Great work! Its really looking good!
Two more suggestions:
1. Add the maven-jetty-plugin the the root pom. It would be nice if
'mvn jetty:run' works for all the examples.
2
Great work! Its really looking good!
Two more suggestions:
1. Add the maven-jetty-plugin the the root pom. It would be nice if
'mvn jetty:run' works for all the examples.
2. Remove all eclipse projects (.project .classpath) from svn and add
the 'maven-eclipse-plugin' to the root project.
PS - Good suggestion - this was included. Take a look at:
https://wicket-stuff.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/wicket-stuff/trunk/wicketstuff-core
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know if this has
yes, that is a problem with this plugin -- it looks at the configured
pom scm and uses the info from there. The biggest problem is that if
you build a modified version, the revision number is from the repos,
*not* your code! so if 'svn info' shows Revision: 220M or 220~218,
the cooked in
It is easy to vote yes to this.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:55 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> But, here you have to assume it was released from the trunk (which I guess
> you can ascertain from the pom's SVN url). I'm not saying this information
> isn't useful. I'm just saying it do
But, here you have to assume it was released from the trunk (which I guess
you can ascertain from the pom's SVN url). I'm not saying this information
isn't useful. I'm just saying it doesn't give you the whole picture by
itself. I was unaware of this plugin, but I do believe I'll add it to our
b
Right, the svn url is important especially when you deploy from 'non-
released' versions (like most of wicketstuff)
This is what I have in my pom.xml
org.apache.maven.plugins
maven-jar-plugin
The revision doesn't tell you everything, though. Typically, you don't
release from "trunk" (at least you're not supposed to). You create a tag
and create the release from there. So, the tag/revision would be what you
need to easily recreate the release.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Ryan Mc
Good suggestion - I like that, too. I'll plan on adding it to the parent
POM.
Thanks!
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Nov 26, 2008, at 11:38 AM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
>
> I think Wayne was referring not to your post, but in general - if we
>> p
On Nov 26, 2008, at 11:38 AM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
I think Wayne was referring not to your post, but in general - if we
package
most of the projects up neatly under one parent, then other projects
that
aren't in the same subdirectory / build cycle may get lost.
Hopefully having a clean
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Jeremy Thomerson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Typically, browsing the SVN tree isn't the way we find projects.
Talk for yourself :)
Martijn
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additio
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Jeremy Thomerson <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think Wayne was referring not to your post, but in general - if we
> package
> most of the projects up neatly under one parent, then other projects that
> aren't in the same subdirectory / build cycle may get lost.
I think Wayne was referring not to your post, but in general - if we package
most of the projects up neatly under one parent, then other projects that
aren't in the same subdirectory / build cycle may get lost.
I don't see this as too much of an issue - a project's visibility will come
from a) it'
Merely "bundling" the examples with the code itself shouldn't cause this, do
you think?
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:17 AM, Wayne Pope <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> YES.
> However I feel people may pass over the earlier branches (especially when
> we're on Wicket version 5.8!) and hence miss some gr
YES.
However I feel people may pass over the earlier branches (especially when
we're on Wicket version 5.8!) and hence miss some great code that may not
take much to get working and maintain on the newer branch.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:06 AM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Yes, our en
Yes, our entire project at work is like this. The top-level project
holds multiple modules. Each has a common, server, and client
submodule. Works like a charm.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Jeremy Thomerson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Great idea! Yes. I have not nested any projects three
Great idea! Yes. I have not nested any projects three deep in the past,
but it should work. Has anybody else tried this?
It would be:
wicket-stuff-parent
-- wicket-foo
-- wicket-foo-core
-- wicket-foo-examples
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
18 matches
Mail list logo
