Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of elecharny@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.46.153 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject
         :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding
         :sender;
        b=pz34NDG4p1o2EEmoMKeeLKaxQcuHiM8Ki25SI40b/nwunfEoCAJ2Z3C1QBiK4aBS8I
         oDNT3LY1u3QwDJKXGF+hEas8FB1zRkMAGrlfKBiEYsgvnYTVh08CZenjEzV2uCcKeqAV
         es2R+UAEDV+sfNcv3ZABstB6gH9Ocb7JVE+xk=
Message-ID: <4863AEA7.3080100@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:58:47 +0200
From: Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@apache.org>
Reply-To: elecharny@apache.org
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Again: The Maven Repository
References: <510143ac0806252254t791a641cua36909b679d9d00e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <19e0530f0806260535o2d0c2e21l7ef29e75f4313ca5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <44b57a610806260623ua30505aq74ca643613257fcf@mail.gmail.com>
 <918312fe0806260639q5084e5f2me662ce660314f8ae@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <918312fe0806260639q5084e5f2me662ce660314f8ae@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@gmail.com>

Hi Martijn,

Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> I would
> therefore continue maintaining the old jsecurity code, and release
> those outside the incubator, just as normal business for your project.
>   
There are options. Maintaining the old repo can be tough, as the 
repository will be different, and make merges difficult. Another 
possibility is to deploy the new jars into more than one maven repo : 
incubator's and current jsecurity's repo.
> <snip/>
> I'd suggest also to rename the packages only when
> you are almost ready to graduate. This allows you to merge current
> development and maintenance quite easily.
>   
This is only if you intent to keep both subversion repo alive in //. But 
if users base their development on apache Jsecurity version, they will 
find it painfull to change the package at the very last moment. Don't 
know ... What if they release a preliminary version on Apache with the 
new packages, and make it the base for the incubator developments, so 
that users can use it straight away and benefit from the new features 
JSecurity will implement in the near future ? It can alleviate the 
burden of maintaining two different code bases, out of which one is 
known to be dead...
> THe WIcket project did have all code imported into the incubator repo,
> so we could easily backport features/bug fixes. We just released the
> artifacts on sourceforge and uploaded them ourselves to the central
> repo using the outside channels. We *did* make perfectly clear that
> even though Wicket is in the incubator, that the release wasn't
> endorsed by nor associated with Apache. You can look at the releases
> for Wicket 1.2 (http://wicketframework.org/wicket-1.2) to see how we
> did this.
>   
This work too. Depends on the existing user's base, I guess ?
> The Apache based development (org.apache.wicket) happened in parallel,
> but for the most part in the same namespace as the old wicket code. We
> did create a couple of releases inside the incubator to learn how to
> perform an Apache release. But iirc we never actually published those
> releases to the greater public.
>
> This process worked great for Wicket, but your mileage may vary.
>   
In any case, Wicket team made it solid. A valuable experience for sure !

Thanks Martijn !


-- 
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel L�charny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org