Daniel Kulp wrote:
Right. But if an error is detected in a pom, why does the pom have to be
updated. For example, if there is a:
foo/1.0/foo-1.0.pom
why can't we do something like Gentoo Linux and leave that alone and then
add a:
foo/1.0-R2/foo-1.0-R2.pom
It's stilll "foo 1.0 as release by the foo developers", but its the R2
"update" as far as the maven repository is concerned. If the foo
developers produce a 1.0.1, fine. We create a:
foo/1.0.1/foo-1.0.1.pom
Thus, existing apps and such that depend on the broken behavior are OK and
others can migrate to the "correct" poms as needed.
Anyway, I COMPLETELY agree that stuff put up on ibiblio as a release,
correct or broken, should stay that way.
Right on, Daniel! Introduction of non-maven artifacts could adopt the
scheme from Gentoo (or Debian (Ubuntu)) to provide mavenized released in
which versions numbers could document a change made by "Maven" number X.
Every change in a fixed release of the artifact (POM or whatever) would
increase the X.
A release to the repository has to be write-once. If this is not true,
then Maven has to come with a footnote telling everybody to delete their
local repository if a build goes astray.
Ørjan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
