Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2)
In-Reply-To: <424C6377.1050106@apache.org>
References: <53F5242E-A1F3-11D9-B609-000A95D41A40@apache.org>
 <424C6377.1050106@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <cf22935256c1941461ec7198aed0e9ad@gluecode.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dain Sundstrom <dsundstrom@gluecode.com>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Geronimo PMC Managed,
 project-specific Maven Repository
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:15:52 -0800
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org

On Mar 31, 2005, at 12:54 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:

>> - include a license file for each third-party artifact we have
>
> This is a normal feature of a Maven repo. We should also require that 
> an appropriate POM is installed so that contributors can be 
> identified.

This will be a problem for ant based projects.  I propose we have a 
minimal pom we use for these types of projects.

>> - include a INFO file for each third-party artifact containing
>>     - source of jar
>>     - source's statement about redistribution
>
> We should also include INFO for each release identifying the 
> third-party jars that it uses. This means there is an easier place to 
> look than the content of a distribution.

Can't we use the pom dependencies section for this, or are you thinking 
of something else?

>> Contents
>> --------
>> - top-level index page clearly describing purpose and intent of 
>> repository (0)
>> - all third-party dependencies needed by current and recent-in-time 
>> build (1)
>> - snapshot versions of Geronimo build artifacts for "sister" projects 
>> like OpenEJB that have a [soon-to-go-away] tight dependency on core 
>> geronimo code
>> - release versions of Geronimo build artifacts (maybe not..)
>> (0) can we add a short note put into our maven output that says 
>> "Geronimmo 3rd party dependencies will be sourced from the 
>> project-specific geronimo repository" or such?
>> (1) Do we want to keep old stuff?  I think not - I think we'd want to 
>> be good ASF citizens to keep disk space usage to what is really 
>> needed.  If you need an older version, for some reason, you can slog 
>> it out of ibiblio or the original source.
>
> I think we should keep as much history as possible, at least the 
> dependencies for all maintained branches.

I would say, we never remove a jar.  A SNAPSHOT jar should just be a 
simlink to a numbered jar (this is what maven does already).

Actually, the only SNAPSHOTs I think we should have in our repo are for 
OpenEJB because of the overhead that would be involved in using 
versioned releases.  Once we clean up the interfaces between Geronimo 
and OpenEJB, I think we should switch to fully versioned jars (this is 
what happened with activeMQ once we got the interfaces cleaned up).

-dain