openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Prud'hommeaux <mprud...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Artifact names
Date Wed, 25 Apr 2007 02:37:03 GMT

On Apr 24, 2007, at 7:27 PM, Patrick Linskey wrote:

> Hmm. I wonder if we're really using Maven repositories correctly.  
> Do we
> need our dist to be in Maven at all?

We don't need to. It was just easy to set up that way.


> I do think that we should have something that's easy to depend on that
> pulls in the openjpa-persistence-jdbc module, without making people  
> have
> to know about that level of modularity detail.

Why can't they just depend on openjpa-all? That brings everything in...



> -Patrick
>
> -- 
> Patrick Linskey
> BEA Systems, Inc.
> ______________________________________________________________________ 
> _
> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may  
> contain
> information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and   
> affiliated
> entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted   
> and/or
> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the  
> individual
> or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended  
> recipient,
> and have received this message in error, please immediately return  
> this
> by email and then delete it.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Eddie O'Neil [mailto:ekoneil@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 7:05 PM
>> To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Artifact names
>>
>>
>>   +1 -- I'd prefer to have the binary / source uber-archives
>> outside of the Maven repro, though that's more due to
>> convention than anything else.
>>
>>   I agree that it's not worth worrying about this for 0.9.7.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Eddie
>>
>>
>> On 4/24/07, Michael Dick <michael.d.dick@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm finally getting back to this thread, sorry for the delay.
>>>
>>> I got a similar answer from the maven mailing list. Their stance is
>>> that the maven repository is for artifacts which are used by maven,
>>> which wouldn't be the same as a final destination for our
>> distribution.
>>>
>>> I'm in favor of moving the source and binary archives to a
>> different
>>> location, if there's a good spot available to us.  Does
>> anyone object
>>> to putting the releases somewhere outside of a maven repository?
>>>
>>> I don't think this is urgent for the 0.9.7 release since we
>> can't get
>>> rid of the ugly -project names now, but it might be nice to have a
>>> solution for when OpenJPA graduates.
>>>
>>> On 4/12/07, Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In Geronimo, we publish to the maven repo as maven likes,
>> but when
>>>> we publish to the apache distribution mirrors (for website
>>>> downloads), we name the files as we like.
>>>>
>>>> -dain
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 11, 2007, at 8:34 AM, Michael Dick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm hitting a bit of a snag with the staging repository for
>>>>> release 0.9.7.
>>>>> Recently we made changes to remove -project from our
>> the zip file
>>>>> names. The problem is that the maven install and deploy goals
>>>>> ignore the names we provide and generate their own names (
>>>>> openjpa-project-0.9.7-incubating-xxx.zip).
>>>>>
>>>>> I searched through the users@maven.apache.org mailing list
>>>>> archives and it turns out this is a fairly common problem -
>>>>> usually resulting in a response of "working as
>> designed".  Here's
>>>>> an example
>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/Installation-and-deployment-
>>>>> tf1449780s177.html#a3916784
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone vehemently object to putting -project back into the
>>>>> names for the 0.9.7 release?
>>>>>
>>>>> The only other way I know of to fix the names that get deployed
>>>>> would be to change the artifactId in the pom files (basically
>>>>> switch openjpa with openjpa-project). Switching the names will
>>>>> impact anyone who has a dependency on the base openjpa project.
>>>>> They'll have to update the version number anyway, but it will
>>>>> still be a little confusing if they used to depend on
>>>>> openjpa-0.9.6 and now they depend on openjpa-project-0.9.7.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> -Michael Dick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -Michael Dick
>>>
>>
>
> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may  
> contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries   
> and  affiliated entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,   
> copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for  
> the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you  
> are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in  
> error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.


Mime
View raw message