Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Hiram Chirino wrote:
As I see it, it comes down to a choice of having the user configure
his pom with either
1) an artifact id or group id or version id that
includes "incubator" in it.
or
2) a repository id that include "incubator" in it.
Or, as I see it, both. Since the artifacts are not captive to the
repository, they should carry their own label, too.
This is not a hardship for projects. As you note, #1 is what projects
already do today, and once you've setup the build script properly, it is a
done deal. And, yes, consistency in placement would be nice. We'll try to
help that out with some project templates for Maven and Ant.
The idea that having a separate Incubator repository could reduce work
because "when the podling needs to graduate since dependent projects would
not need to change artifact ids" is not necessarily a good thing.
Distinguishing between what was put out during Incubation and what was put
out post-Incubation is a good thing.
Distinguishing these artifacts is a good thing. I'm not sure that this
mandates a separate incubating maven repo. IIUC, option 1 covers this
nicely if we put the word inclubator in the version number, e.g.
group id: org.apache.yoko
artifact id: yoko-core
version: 1.0-incubator-M1
Just trying to keep things simple.
Regards,
Alan
