Hi, If we admit what Simon has found in the first place is indeed an inconsistency then I believe we must rectify that and if this patch goes well that way then it should be committed. Furthermore, I guess Simon's gone and spent some valuable time over this patch on our invitation to do that. So I think its unfair and discouraging to turn it down now. Well that's what I feel from my heart.
- Venkat On 12/1/06, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I feel that M2 should have been (is) in lock down and fixes should only be to issues that clearly break functionality. However, we the community SHOULD have stuck to that position. Given we gave the go ahead to this and two people have claimed to have tested it and it addresses the issue stated I think we should accept it. ant elder wrote: > On 11/29/06, Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Nov 29, 2006, at 4:00 AM, ant elder wrote: >> > Looks like that answers all the questions and sounds convincing to >> > me. We >> > discussed doing this the other day and agreed it needed doing and >> > based on >> > that Simon went ahead and did the work for it, so I think we should >> > go ahead >> > and apply this to M2 now. Unless there are any other concerns I'll >> > do this >> > tonight. >> >> We didn't agree it needed doing. I still don't think it does as I see >> no downside to not making this change. >> >> I have concerns that using profiles this way will cause problems >> (e.g. what happens if two profiles include different modules) and I >> was hoping Simon had a better solution. I think this approach is >> confusing for users as it's not obvious which modules get built and >> which don't. >> >> I am also concerned that there has not been enough testing given we >> are so close to release. >> >> I'm not concerned enough though to veto such a change so if you think >> it's the right thing to do then go ahead. I would suggest waiting to >> see what the consensus really is. >> -- >> Jeremy > > > I'm reluctant to commit this while you're so against it, but I'm not sure I > understand your concerns. > > We did clearly tell Simon to go and make a patch to do this: > > "<jboynes> simonnash: if you want something different, please give us a > patch for the build to build it as YOU want it" > > and: > > <simonnash> so in building the release I would expect to select a subset of > all available modules and copy those selected modules into contrib and also > deploy htem to maven > <jboynes> patches welcome > <simonnash> ok i will do what I can. any help from others will be > appreciated. > > and then the IRC chat summary posted to the dev list clearly said it was > happening: > > "there was some discussion around what Tuscany jars are released as part of > M2 into the maven repository. Currently everything in the Tuscany build is > released, should that be trimmed to only those things that we want to say > are ready? Simon is going to create a patch to the build to make this > possible." > > No one questioned that and in good faith he's gone off and made a patch as > requested. > > With the current Axiom issue we have a bit of time now, I've tried the > patch > and seems to work fine, would you give it a test? What other testing would > you like to see? > > Another thing I think we should remember is that this patch is from a new > contributor so we should be receptive so as to encourage further > participation. > > I'd really appreciate others comments on if we should apply this. > > ...ant > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
