Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of ammulder@gmail.com designates
 72.14.214.194 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=S34jgs1rwMWev6Ja6o5RGnDwXbG0GuVtcy32CIv+hwTOppvB2LhjdDuGoZmp8a6+vIlbvXA/2g8WVp7Yi/RsjuAJO0uyLsiJglNxb+Hmas/TrAqZdH1ae3wpd3dIlkOHNGKSsCR+VDR0Hnsk/yiKCv7yiLqXy3teuJpjsyU61Lc=
Message-ID: <74e15baa0606280632r6b308133r8fe68005e3b3fe82@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:32:07 -0400
From: "Aaron Mulder" <ammulder@alumni.princeton.edu>
Sender: ammulder@gmail.com
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Why do we have pom.xml files in the 1.1 branch?
In-Reply-To: <44A283E2.5010707@toolazydogs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <44A0CA96.2080602@gmail.com> <44A0E6EE.7010303@hogstrom.org>
	 <90D21FC9-BFC3-4F86-816A-23D4D7F542E2@planet57.com>
	 <74e15baa0606280423s5c69ced0r6b6826c9869ca169@mail.gmail.com>
	 <44A283E2.5010707@toolazydogs.com>

On 6/28/06, Alan D. Cabrera <list@toolazydogs.com> wrote:
> This is correct.  At one time the specs root had a root and that root
> was at the root of the geronimo directory.  ;)

Does that mean you know for sure that the 1.1 geronimo POM(s) can be
deleted safely (because the specs module has moved on and this
requirement is no longer there)?  That's how I read your message; I
just want to be sure that's correct.

Thanks,
    Aaron


> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > I believe at one time the M2 specs module(s) did not build unless you
> > had first run a M2 build in the geronimo directory, which did nothing
> > except copy the POM into your M2 repo.  I have no idea why, or whether
> > that's still an issue.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >     Aaron
> >
> > On 6/27/06, Jason Dillon <jason@planet57.com> wrote:
> >> find branches/1.1 -name pom.xml -exec svn rm \{\} \;
> >> svn ci
> >>
> >> --jason
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jun 27, 2006, at 1:06 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm fine removing them but I am not planning on doing the work :)
> >> >
> >> > John Sisson wrote:
> >> >> Are these being used/maintained? Should they be deleted to avoid
> >> >> confusion?
> >> >> Thanks,
> >> >> John
> >>
> >>
>
>