maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brett Porter <>
Subject Re: Repository Plugin: Should SCM be Required??
Date Wed, 30 Sep 2009 04:57:34 GMT
I think any rule needs to be enforced on the server side as much as in  
the repository plugin too.

For mine, I think strongly recommending SCM is a good idea, but we do  
allow artifacts that are redistributable and not open source and so it  
should not be required. If you were to get fancy you could tighten the  
requirement for those that specify an open source license.

You might also consider an associated source bundle in the repository  
a suitable replacement for the SCM element?

Anyway, strongly recommending/defaulting is one thing, but I wouldn't  
get into the practice of rejecting things that don't provide it.

- Brett

On 30/09/2009, at 6:56 AM, John Casey wrote:

> Hi,
> I've been having a conversation with Jason and some others lately  
> about the repository plugin, and the fact that it doesn't require  
> the SCM section of the POM. POMs with this section missing disable  
> the project materialization features that some of the more recent  
> Maven tooling (m2eclipse in my personal experience) takes advantage  
> of.
> Materialization is a HUGE benefit to developers, as I can testify.  
> IMO, no OSS project should publish a POM for upload that doesn't  
> specify an SCM's insane to even pretend you have a  
> project without an SCM, and if it's an OSS project, that SCM should  
> probably have a public view. I'm not sure of the ins and outs of all  
> OSS licensing, or whether a publicly available SCM is required for  
> these licenses, but there is a clear benefit to having that access.
> I've filed to address  
> what Jason and I both consider a shortcoming, but I also noticed

> , which originally took this requirement out of the plugin. Can we  
> say that the use case driving that decision is obsolete?
> I'm also working on another approach, a "disableMaterialization"  
> flag that would allow the bundling to proceed in spite of missing  
> SCM information. However, this is probably over-engineering if we  
> can agree that SCM information should be present for anything hosted  
> in central.
> Thoughts?
> -john
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message