On 17/06/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The repository folks have thus far created several repositories:
http://www.apache.org/dist/java-repository/
http://www.apache.org/dist/maven-repository/
http://people.apache.org/repository/
There's also http://people.apache.org/maven-snapshot-repository/
So between these that's one official repository for deploying to using
each of maven1 and maven2, and one development repository each. The
development repositories are not mirrored anywhere at present.
I am in favour of using a different repository for incubator
artifacts. In your view, should there be both a development build
repository and a release repository, or should development builds in
the incubator be allowed into the development repositories for the
others?
If this was the case, I'd argue that the group/artifactId should not
include the 'incubating' mark, making it a smoother transition after
graduation.
Given these cases, I am assuming you would not want the incubating
repositories mirrored (ie, users of the release would have to opt-in
to the repository). I also assume you would want those maintaining the
ibiblio repository to reject requests from users to manually upload
any of these releases. Are these correct?
On the non-ASF artifact side, to fill in those on [EMAIL PROTECTED] as
its been discussed on repository@, I don't believe any of these should
house things not produced by the ASF (though this has always been the
intent, it historically wasn't the case until the snapshot repository
was recently purged). There is some discussion about creating one,
specifically for housing development builds of non-ASF artifacts,
which would be non-mirrored also (obviously).
- Brett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
