maven-repo-maintainers mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jesse McConnell" <jesse.mcconn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Syncing stuff from java.net....
Date Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:38:15 GMT
ya, I would suggest duplicating the jar and making a new version, perhaps a
notation for 1.0.4.p1, 1.0.4.p2 etc with just pom differences, even
commenting in the pom.xml what the improvement is...

unless we look at the idea brett was mentioning a while back about with
supporting in place pom.xml updates of some form..

jesse

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Daniel Kulp <dkulp@apache.org> wrote:

> On Friday 17 October 2008 11:09:40 am Brian E. Fox wrote:
> > I think this is a case like we discussed on the call where we put this
> > stuff under a new group id since we are now essentially owning the pom.
>
> I personally think changing the groupId is a bad idea.   You can too easily
> get multiple versions of the same thing into your build and no telling what
> would happen.   If one of your deps transitively depends
> on "groupA:artifact:1.0" and another depends on "groupB:artifact:1.0.1",
> you
> end up with both versions which can cause all kinds of ugly issues.
>
> If that's what needs to be done, I rather just copy the bad poms "as is"
> and
> keep the version/groupid as is.    I'm quite OK with that.   I was just
> hoping to clean things up a bit while doing it.   It's definitely
> easier/faster if I don't spend the time doing that.    :-)
>
> Dan
>
>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:dkulp@apache.org]
> > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 10:39 AM
> > To: repo-maintainers@maven.apache.org
> > Cc: private@maven.apache.org
> > Subject: Syncing stuff from java.net....
> >
> >
> > Once again, I just got bit by the java.net folks replacing a jar in
> their
> > repo with a different jar of same name/version.    I didn't really notice
> > it for almost a month as my repo manager was doing it's job, but since
> the
> > project (CXF) is open source, others are now being hit by it.
> >
> > Thus, I think I need to spend some time at least getting my dependencies
> > from java.net put into central so I can remove the java.net repo from
> the
> > poms and avoid them.    However, I have a "policy" question....
> >
> > The poms at java.net tend to suck.   As I copy things to central, I'd
> like
> > to update them to include things like license tags, organization tags,
> > URL's, names, descriptions, etc.....     However, that will make the poms
> > at central different than the ones on java.net.   The jar itself would
> be
> > the same and I'd (most likely) leave the deps.  Just update the metadata.
> >
> > So, the question is: do I change the version number?   Example:
> > jaxb 2.1.7    ->    jaxb 2.1.7-1
> > or similar?   We did something like that for jaxws-api due to them
> > redeploying a jar of the same version.    The "cons" to this is that the
> > version number is different.   The "pro" is that if you depend on the
> > version in central, you ONLY will get it from central.   If you have
> > java.net repo in your pom, you won't get it from there.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Kulp
> dkulp@apache.org
> http://dankulp.com/blog
>



-- 
jesse mcconnell
jesse.mcconnell@gmail.com

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message