geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Blevins <david.blev...@visi.com>
Subject Re: Geronimo Specs 1.1-SNAPSHOT -- more opinions please!
Date Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:27:56 GMT

On Jan 30, 2006, at 12:26 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:

> David Blevins wrote, On 1/30/2006 11:39 AM:
>> On Jan 30, 2006, at 11:24 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>> If we moved to Maven 2 and used its transitive dependencies,  
>>> would  the the need for an Uber jar be obviated?
>> For maven 2 all we need is an uber pom.  For people on maven 1  
>> and  ant and plain IDEs, an uber jar is nice.
>
> Following that line of reasoning, should we not have a super-uber  
> jar that contains the specs, Geronimo, and its depdendencies?  I  
> think that it's better to do away w/ the uber jar all together.
>

Isn't that called a "Release" ????

But I kind of like super-uber :)  Something snappy about using the  
same word twice in different languages.

A gracious gracias,
David


Mime
View raw message