geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason van Zyl <>
Subject Re: no more modules for specs...
Date Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:33:52 GMT

On 16 Dec 06, at 11:26 AM 16 Dec 06, Kevan Miller wrote:

> On Dec 15, 2006, at 6:41 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>> this change really killed me for all of the build automation I  
>> have been working on... and was one of the reasons why I had  
>> warned against using this style of versioning.
>> basically since this was removed, checking out the specs project  
>> and building it produces nothing, except for this:
>>     org/apache/geronimo/specs/specs/maven-metadata-local.xml
>>     org/apache/geronimo/specs/specs/1.2/specs-1.2.pom
>>     org/apache/geronimo/specs/specs/1.2/specs-1.2-site.xml
> <snip>
> I think this discussion has gotten a bit off track. I don't think  
> we should be discussing archiva capabilities, at all.
> IMO, we release source code. Binary distributions and maven  
> artifacts are a convenience. If users can't build our source code,  
> then there's a problem.

You think your users build from sources to make their Geronimo  
servers for production or are you talking about just the specs? I  
would argue that it's rare for users to want to build everything from  
source, but even if they only built the Geronimo sources they still  
need all the binary dependencies at which point the quality of the  
repository matters. I think the discussion is germane in the context  
of your users building production systems from source.


> Jason Dillon, what source are you checking out? geronimo/specs/ 
> trunk? I see that geronimo/specs/trunk still contains many sub- 
> directories. IIUC, this is just a point in time statement. geronimo/ 
> specs/trunk/pom.xml should be updated to be at 1.3-SNAPSHOT. Those  
> sub-directories should be going away. Only specs which are under  
> development should reside in trunk. At least, that's what I thought  
> we'd agreed to... Released specs should be in tags. If you want to  
> build our released specs from source, you need to get them from  
> tags and build each individually. If that's not working, then I'd  
> agree there's a problem.
> --kevan

View raw message