Yeah, that's the sort of thing I wanted to talk about here. I was curious what was outstanding in terms of non-design bugs that could be addressed prior to 1.0-final. This would seem to fit the bill...is it assigned to the 1.0 version in JIRA?
/me looks... I don't see anything in there that would seem to match, but it's possible I'm not familiar enough with the issue to find it...unless it's WAGON-71. -john On 2/28/07, Joakim Erdfelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Before we close out wagon 1.0... Should we address the recurring scp / permissions issue we have with people.apache.org? - Joakim John Casey wrote: > I think all of these items are great ideas. I think you've done a > great job > of summing up the major recurring discussions about improving wagon > (not to > mention a couple of good ideas in there that I haven't heard much > about). I > wouldn't stand in the way of any of this...except where wagon-1.0 is > concerned. > > IMO, most of this list should be developed post-1.0 (whether that's > 1.1 or > 2.0 is up for debate, of course; this wouldn't really seem to demand a > complete rewrite, which is what I'd expect of a 2.0). I don't see how > you're > going to make some of these changes without creating a lot more backward > compatibility issues. If we planned on tackling these things in the > 1.0branch, we should have gone through more alphas. IMO, we've missed > our > chance. > > I think it's important to remember that the existing wagon api works > well in > many cases, and for a large number of users. We should declare this one a > success, and move on to implementing the things we learned from it. > > -john > > On 2/28/07, Joakim Erdfelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Just so that we have "Joakim's plans" documented here .... >> >> Wagon Ideas. >> >> 1. Add Timeouts. >> Question becomes, how do we configure this value? >> Per Protocol? or Per Repository? >> Do we use the <server><configuration> section in the settings.xml ? >> 2. Add Client Header Identification. >> This would only be useful on some protocols (such as http / dav), >> but completely irrelevant on others. >> Jason could use this to track the uptake of specific versions of >> maven on the repo1.maven.org side. >> If we decide to do this for http, we can make it be a separate >> request header, or a modification of the USER-AGENT string. >> 3. Streaming Wagons. >> 4. Limited Wagon Transactions. >> This becomes a problem when we have a deploy that modifies the >> maven-metadata.xml >> 5. Deprecation of repository id / server id as the authentication >> binding mechanism. >> Use what precisely to bind to? >> 1. hostname >> 2. hostname:port >> 3. protocol://hostname:port >> 4. regex of any of the above >> 5. all of the above >> 6. Whitelists on repositories in pom.xml, based on groupId. (don't >> bother searching this repository if the groupId doesn't match). >> This should help optimize the repository searching. It's just a >> piece of build optimization, anyone consuming the pom could just >> as well ignore this optimization with no ill effects. >> 7. Password Encryption in the settings.xml >> >> I welcome discussion. >> Big +1 or -1 on any concept above. >> >> And I realize that the concepts above are not wagon exclusive, but >> rather overlap with maven 2.1 too. >> >> - Joakim >> >> Trygve Laugstøl wrote: >> > John Casey wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I just committed some changes to trunk that should restore backward >> >> compatibility for using older wagons (at least in the vast >> majority of >> >> cases). It may still break if there is an older version of a wagon >> >> out there >> >> that doesn't extend from AbstractWagon (since the Wagon interface >> >> picked up >> >> like 5 new methods lately). >> >> >> >> Can we start talking about a Wagon 1.0-final release? What do we need >> >> to get >> >> this done? It looks like the current roadmap only shows 3 outstanding >> >> issues >> >> for the next release. Does anyone have plans for finishing those, and >> >> are >> >> they enough to serve as a basis for a final release? >> >> >> >> I'm just trying to figure out what plans there are for this, since >> >> I'd like >> >> to move toward a 2.1-alpha-1 release of maven, and this is going >> to be >> a >> >> prereq. >> > >> > I say release what Wagon is now as 1.0 (in other words no API >> > breakage) and put Joakim's plans into Wagon 2.0. >> > >> > -- >> > Trygve >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > 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]
