I agree on waiting until after 3.3. We've successfully had m2 deploy to m1 repos. We do it internally at work...
On 10/17/07, Thomas Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd think twice before switching the build process now to m2. The > "official", tested, proven build is still the m1 build. I do believe that > the m2 build produces correct jars but I'm not so sure about testing, site > etc. > I agree wholeheartedly that we should tackle this after 3.3 but I'd rather > not touch this now. Building a release is complicated enough. > > Also, I'm not sure whether m2 can deploy in a m1 repo (never done this > before). This will need some research. > > I'd leave this to Thomas V to decide (he has all the hassle building the > stuff) but personally I'd get 3.3 out of the door and clean up afterwards. > > Thomas > > "Jeffrey Brekke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 17.10.2007 17:17:44: > > > Eeeww. m2 can obtain artifacts from an m1 repo, but I think the > > issues come into deployment of the m2 plugin into/from an m1 repo ( > > and maybe vice-versa ). If the plugins are separate projects, > > installed into their respective repos, shouldn't the non-plugin > > artifacts (jars) just be deployed into one place with once > > group/artifactid? Even if this is a m1 repo? Then we could just use > > an m2 build for everything but the m1 plugin? > > > > On 10/17/07, Thomas Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > a) we cannot use a m2 build only because the m1 plurgin needs an m1 > build. > > > And we cannot use a m1 build only because the m2 plugin needs a m2 > build. > > > So we have to use two types of repository at the moment and we cannot > do > > > anything against it. > > > b) The m1:org.apache.torque is the long term goal. I'd not switch the > group > > > id in an rc. Also, having the two goup ids separates the two builds: > group > > > id "torque" are the m1 built files, group id "org.apache.torque" are > the m2 > > > built files. So I'd prefer to keept he the m1:torque, > > > m2:org.apache.torque solution for 3.3. This does not mean I'm -1 on the > > > other solution, it is just my personal preference. > > > > > > Thomas > > > > > > Thomas Vandahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 16.10.2007 22:24:52: > > > > > > > Thomas Fischer wrote: > > > > >> - I'd propose to put the resulting jar into the Maven repository > in > > > the > > > > >> "torque" group or "org.apache.torque" respectively. What do > others > > > > >> say? > > > > > > > > > > m1:torque, m2:org.apache.torque is good. > > > > > > > > The repository people are bugging everybody to settle on one type of > > > > repository only. Shouldn't we try to use one group only for Torque? I > > > > propose to deploy the artifacts to the m2-repo only and use > > > > 'org.apache.torque' for this. Would that create big obstacles for the > > > > two maven plugins? > > > > > > > > Bye, Thomas. > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > -- > > Jeffrey D. Brekke > > Wisconsin, USA > > > > brekke at apache dot org > > ekkerbj at gmail dot com > > jbrekke at wi dot rr dot com > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Jeffrey D. Brekke Wisconsin, USA brekke at apache dot org ekkerbj at gmail dot com jbrekke at wi dot rr dot com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
