directory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Karasulu" <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Policy for Managing TLP POM
Date Wed, 23 May 2007 16:32:50 GMT
NP Chris thanks for expending the brain cycles to look over this mess.

Alex

On 5/23/07, Chris Custine <chris.custine@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You know what? Disregard my last email.  I wasn't thinking about this
> properly.  I understand what you are saying now (don't ask me why I didn't
> get it 5 minutes ago).  In fact, I agree with you 100%.
>
> Two things...
> 1).  Not sure I understand what rule #3 is about.
> 2).  In this scenario, the maven guys also recommend just using an
> incremented counter for the parent pom version, like 1,2,3,4,5 instead of
> 1.0, 1.2, 2.0, etc.  I guess this is basically because there is no
> artifact produced so the versioning should be as simple as possible.  Just
> passing that along...
>
> And now that I have my head on straight...  my first vote.  ;-)
>
> [x] +1 Apply this policy/process for TLP POM management
>
>
> On 5/23/07, Chris Custine <chris.custine@gmail.com > wrote:
> >
> > I fall into the "dazed and confused" camp at the moment so I need to do
> > some more reading to fully understand.  One part in particular that I don't
> > understand is this line:
> >
> > "This causes it's misuse to facilitate building ApacheDS and all it's
> > dependencies in one big build. This must stop because this usage makes it
> > inconvenient to use for building other projects like Triplesec and LDAP
> > Studio once it moves to Maven."
> >
> > I actually LIKE it this way  :-)  I don't think this actually causes any
> > harm anyway, because if you build a project that references this pom as a
> > parent, the modules section is ignored IIRC.  Are you talking about some
> > other issue with the parent pom?
> >
> > These maven setups are definitely a complex issue so I find myself
> > wanting to take a cautious approach...
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On 5/22/07, Alex Karasulu <akarasulu@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I compiled some documentation talking about how we should handle a
> > > parent POM for our TLP
> > > so all subprojects can inherit from it.  We have been using it
> > > incorrectly and have been loosing
> > > track of it. I explain all this and expose some simple policy (6
> > > rules) that will help us keep this
> > > all straight [1].
> > >
> > > Please read this and let's vote on it make it official.
> > >
> > > [  ] +1 Apply this policy/process for TLP POM management
> > > [  ] +/-0 Abstain - don't understand or don't care
> > > [  ] -1 Do *NOT* apply this policy for TLP POM management
> > >
> > > -- Alex
> > >
> > > -------
> > > [1] - http://cwiki.apache.org/DIRxDEV/top-level-pom-management-policy.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
View raw message