commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From simon <simon.kitch...@chello.at>
Subject Re: svn commit: r608470 - /commons/proper/commons-parent/trunk/pom.xml
Date Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:53:25 GMT

On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 19:46 +0000, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2008 6:56 PM, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org> wrote:
> > Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > > On Jan 3, 2008 5:00 PM, Dennis Lundberg <dennisl@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> I'd prefer if we could keep the section about
> > >> maven-remote-resources-plugin that is under pluginManagement. That way
> > >> we can ensure that those components that decide to use it, all use the
> > >> same version.
> > >
> > > Currrently all components have license and notice files so better to
> > > wait IMO till we have components wanting to use it first. Given some
> > > of the opinions expressed I would be surprised if any adopted it - or
> > > if they did that there weren't objections.
> >
> > Logging already uses it.
> >
> > The change that I propose does not mean that everyone will automatically
> > start using it. That decision is still up to the developers of each
> > component. But for those components that use, or decide to start using,
> > maven-remote-resources-plugin, it will make their builds more consistent.
> 
> I understand but from the various discussions seems clear to me that
> the argument was lost. In the case of Logging I also think it
> confusing that it has Notice and License files in svn but it packages
> up different versions (i.e. those from the apache jar) in its jar.
> Also I just generated the logging jar and the generated Notice file
> included the following which IMO is worse than the one in svn:
> 
> This product includes/uses software(s) developed by 'an unknown organization'
>   - Unnamed - avalon-framework:avalon-framework:jar:4.1.3
>   - Unnamed - log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.12
>   - Unnamed - logkit:logkit:jar:1.0.1
> 
> So perhaps logging should revert to its svn versions for now until the
> argument for the remote resources plugin is won and that plugin works
> better.

I agree with Niall. I would have voted -1 on the logging release if I
had realised that the Notice/License files were auto-generated. I have
to kick myself for not having found time to check the logging release.

I have seen little positive comment on the remote-resources approach,
certainly no consensus. Therefore there is little point in cluttering up
the poms with stuff that is not (and IMO should not) be used.

Regards,
Simon



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message