On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Justin Edelson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Oct 20, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Phillip Hellewell <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> So how about a solution where you still have to tell it the SCM just >> not the URL, e.g., if the <connection> could be set to like >> "scm:svn:infer". > > This would make project materialization from a pom impossible. Stephen's > addition to the scm plugin makes far more sense. Stephen - Rick Mangi has > access to an svn implementation of this and I have a git implementation. Let > me know if you want these (I'll have to ask Rick nicely for the svn one).
But what if I don't care about being able to materialize a project from a pom? Anyone not using the scm or release plugins doesn't have a <connection> in their poms, so why should I have to have one if I don't need "materialization from a pom"? Now don't get me wrong. I actually do want to be able to materialize a project from a pom. I think that is cool and I really do want it. But due to our layout in SVN I already know just from the artifactId and version exactly where the tag I need is at. So I really don't need a connection setting in the pom to be able to materialize a project from it. Having said all that, I'm not opposed at all to the release pluign adding a <connection> section to the pom in the tag that gets created and to the pom that is deployed. It's just on the trunk (and branches) that it would be nice to never have have that defined in there and have to make sure it stays in sync and no one screws it up. Phillip --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
