On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:37 PM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24 August 2010 19:17, EJ Ciramella <[email protected]> wrote: >> No, we didn't realize the relocation poms existed until it was too late. >> >> We wanted to match up in source control/java package/groupId/artifactId so >> that they were uniform. Which is great because from just about any angle >> (stacktrace, source path, package name in IDE) you know exactly where to >> look elsewhere to find something (say, you wanna look at local disk or >> source browser, etc). >> >> The main problem was communication. There was a lot of hate mail as older >> modules that hadn't been touched in a long time were dredged up for >> something or another and when people tried to point at newer version of the >> relocated libraries, things were missing, etc. >> >> There were maybe, 50 or more versions for any of the moved modules floating >> around that all would need these silly "relocation" poms to support older >> builds. > > What do you mean here? > Are you saying that if the groupId is changed for a new release, one > also needs to change all existing releases to add relocation poms? > I thought one only had to add the relocation POMs for the new releases? > >> Everything is possible given an endless amount of time/energy/etc. We wound >>up having to branch things just to update groupIds, blah blah blah - it was a >>mess. >> >> This is a massive generalization. >> >> Keep it stupid simple, right? Don't move things around... > > I'm not proposing moving anything around; just changing the groupId > going forward. > > Is that likely to cause any problems?
Yes - the problem is going to be users getting more than one copy of an artefact on their classpath. its been discussed a few times on the Commons dev list - I found the following thread. http://markmail.org/message/tky6c734r2dia2gd AIUI relocation can't really help with this Niall >> -----Original Message----- >> From: sebb [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 2:08 PM >> To: Maven Users List >> Subject: Re: Correcting a groupID >> >> On 24 August 2010 18:44, EJ Ciramella <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Yeah, I know - hate to cross-pollinate here but the Nexus bible states the >>> repo is for deposits only. >>> >>> Essentially backing up the "just change NEW snapshots/releases, leave the >>> old ones where they are" sentiment. >> >> OK >> >>> In another life, I casually agreed we should change the groupId of an >>> artifact and all hell broke loose... >> >> Did you use relocation POMs? >> >> What were the exact problems? >> Could they have been avoided, and if so, how? >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
