It is easy to vote yes to this.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 5:55 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> But, here you have to assume it was released from the trunk (which I guess
> you can ascertain from the pom's SVN url).  I'm not saying this information
> isn't useful.  I'm just saying it doesn't give you the whole picture by
> itself.  I was unaware of this plugin, but I do believe I'll add it to our
> build cycle.  Thanks for the tip!
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Right, the svn url is important especially when you deploy from
> > 'non-released' versions (like most of wicketstuff)
> >
> > This is what I have in my pom.xml
> >
> >
> >                        <plugin>
> >                          <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId>
> >                          <artifactId>maven-jar-plugin</artifactId>
> >                          <configuration>
> >                            <archive>
> >                              <manifestEntries>
> >              <Specification-Title>${project.name}</Specification-Title>
> >
> >  <Specification-Version>${project.version}</Specification-Version>
> >              <Implementation-Title>${project.name
> }</Implementation-Title>
> >              <Implementation-Version>${project.version} ${buildNumber} -
> ${
> > user.name}</Implementation-Version>
> >              <SCM-Revision>${buildNumber}</SCM-Revision>
> >              <SCM-url>${scm.url}</SCM-url>
> >                              </manifestEntries>
> >                            </archive>
> >                          </configuration>
> >                        </plugin>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Nov 26, 2008, at 3:24 PM, James Carman wrote:
> >
> >  The revision doesn't tell you everything, though.  Typically, you don't
> >> release from "trunk" (at least you're not supposed to).  You create a
> tag
> >> and create the release from there.  So, the tag/revision would be what
> you
> >> need to easily recreate the release.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Nov 26, 2008, at 11:38 AM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I think Wayne was referring not to your post, but in general - if we
> >>>
> >>>> package
> >>>> most of the projects up neatly under one parent, then other projects
> >>>> that
> >>>> aren't in the same subdirectory / build cycle may get lost.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Hopefully having a cleaned up source tree with better pom/version reuse
> >>> will make it much easier to keep things up-to-date and useful.  It
> should
> >>> not be that hard to clean up most of the existing projects.
> >>>
> >>> Another thing that would be nice to add to the parent pom is:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> http://maven.apache.org/plugin-developers/cookbook/add-svn-revision-to-manifest.html
> >>>
> >>> I have found it invaluable to have the SVN version cooked into the
> >>> artifacts -- particularly after something has been running stable for a
> >>> year
> >>> and you can't possibly remember exactly where it came from.
> >>>
> >>> ryan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  --
> >>>> Jeremy Thomerson
> >>>> http://www.wickettraining.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 7:10 AM, James Carman <
> >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Merely "bundling" the examples with the code itself shouldn't cause
> >>>> this,
> >>>>
> >>>>> do
> >>>>> you think?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:17 AM, Wayne Pope <
> >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> YES.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> However I feel people may pass over the earlier branches (especially
> >>>>>> when
> >>>>>> we're on Wicket version 5.8!) and hence miss some great code that
> may
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>> take much to get working and maintain on the newer branch.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:06 AM, James Carman <
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, our entire project at work is like this.  The top-level project
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> holds multiple modules.  Each has a common, server, and client
> >>>>>>> submodule.  Works like a charm.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Jeremy Thomerson
> >>>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  Great idea!  Yes.  I have not nested any projects three deep in
> the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>  past,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  but it should work.  Has anybody else tried this?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It would be:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> wicket-stuff-parent
> >>>>>>>> -- wicket-foo
> >>>>>>>>  -- wicket-foo-core
> >>>>>>>>  -- wicket-foo-examples
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>  wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I don't know if this has already been discussed, but another part
> of
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>  cleanup that would be nice is to group the main project and the
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  example
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>  project into a folder with a common parent pom.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For example, I find the layout of:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://wicket-stuff.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/wicket-stuff/trunk/inmethod-grid/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>  much easier to use/maintain then the apparent standard of
> >>>>>>>>> /wicketstuff-project & /wicketstuff-project-example
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://wicket-stuff.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/wicket-stuff/trunk/wicketstuff-push/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> https://wicket-stuff.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/wicket-stuff/trunk/wicketstuff-push-examples/
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>  one key thing about this change is that mvn eclipse:eclipse makes
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  the
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>  example project depend on the core project
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> perhaps this could be added to the 'organize' task?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ryan
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Jeremy Thomerson
> >>>>>>>> http://www.wickettraining.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]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to