Mailing-List: contact open-jpa-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of ekoneil@gmail.com designates
 64.233.162.226 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=EddoLcX2BClTAy3q+BrC9ODzDXuOp2PEC5uhHNJT+2MaGBXKaeM50ISzJFxBWnE56Sz61AVHuJykWzIt+x+s0oiKpCaWU4ZyniI//BNxCKikYh3wfrrq1xn52rxrH78TLsXd6YAVN9K5mNNqBjrZo96c6wtw2EA5IFNzZ2GVWM0=
Message-ID: <e9ac83540704241905p5d35b0ecpd9186b41057fe617@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 20:05:07 -0600
From: "Eddie O'Neil" <ekoneil@gmail.com>
To: open-jpa-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Artifact names
In-Reply-To: <72c1350f0704241239k67ab9100t1fcec95e110bdf01@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <72c1350f0704110834r65770cdbtb1b03ba0870e18cb@mail.gmail.com>
	 <E1F27A7A-7832-4B8C-93EB-2D2EF723DC97@iq80.com>
	 <72c1350f0704241239k67ab9100t1fcec95e110bdf01@mail.gmail.com>

  +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
>