geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr. <>
Subject Re: Dedicated maven repo
Date Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:29:58 GMT

On Mar 30, 2005, at 5:09 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> On Mar 30, 2005, at 3:37 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>> On Mar 30, 2005, at 5:57 AM, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>> All - For now, we could make a first step by just putting the 
>> geronimo build artifacts on - namely the 
>> spec jars (for now, more on that laster), the geronimo-* jars from 
>> modules.  If we make publishing snapshot jars the custom whenever a 
>> change is committed (manually via maven deploy now, auto later), we 
>> can probably go a long way towards reducing some of the build misery 
>> that we go through.
> We've had this forever


>> I'm +1, and happy to limit the ASF-hosted repo to our build artifacts 
>> to get started, and use the external proposed repo at Gluecode as a 
>> replacement for ibiblio as our primary source for external 
>> dependencies, because iBiblio is so slow and painful at times.
> I don't think we should move our repo just because someone believes 
> there might possibly be a policy against it at Apache.

It's discouraged because it really puts us in the distribution business 
for non ASF code.  Yes, we do release non-ASF code as part of the 
release process, and there are jars in svn/cvs.  The world isn't 

>   This simply too common of an excuse here.

An excuse for what?

>  I think that if you really believe there is a policy against it, then 
> we should ask the board for an official ruling on it.

I think you'd find a spectrum of answers, leaning towards "no 
distribution of other software outside of a distribution".

The world isn't perfect here.  I don't like the "Well, they do it too!" 
approach, but we can try to be proactive here, and I'm willing to try 
the following argument if the Geronimo PMC supports it :

Because we do distribute 3rd party binaries as part of our release 
products, we would like to make the same third party binaries available 
via maven download for our build.  We as a PMC will treat additions or 
updates of third party binaries to the repo (which we will manage) with 
the same oversight process that we do for releases - we would do it 
after PMC votes.  We would setup 
(or some other color of the bikeshed) to do this.  If this was 
successful, we should consider talking to other PMCs to expand the 

I'm willing to try and sell that.

>  We should also insist that any policy is universally enforced as 
> there are tons of projects that have all their dependencies in cvs or 
> an Apache hosted repo.  My guess there is no policy against this (or 
> someone has a lot of enforcement in front of them ;)

I think you'd find it to be a consensus POV rather than Apache Policy 
#2041....  the board tries to avoid setting strict policy.

> My order preference is, 
>, or ibiblio.

ibiblio is awful and you know it. If we don't have the resources here 
on ASF machines, we need an alternative to make life easier for us and 
our users.


> -dain
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437

View raw message