On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> I am aware the Maven never does schema checking but that it complains when
> processing the pom when it sees things that aren't part of the model. So if
> IIUC you are just taking advantage of a place that Maven isn't rigorous in
> its valid
I am aware the Maven never does schema checking but that it complains when
processing the pom when it sees things that aren't part of the model. So if
IIUC you are just taking advantage of a place that Maven isn't rigorous in its
validation. That would be fine.
Ralph
On Jul 30, 2011, at 4:29
I think that your understanding is oversimplified, with all due respect.
Yes, there is an xml schema emitted by modello. However, no, no
version of maven checks poms against a schema. So, it is possible to
make changes to the pom that are compatible with Maven 2, by the
expedient of testing that t
i think I'm missing something. My understanding has been that any file named
pom.xml that isn't compliant with 4.0.0 is going to break Maven 2 users. Am I
misunderstanding something about what is being proposed?
Ralph
On Jul 29, 2011, at 8:04 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I think Herve said so
I think Herve said so.
On Jul 29, 2011, at 10:50 AM, John Casey wrote:
>
>
> On 7/29/11 7:45 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>> thereof? Does anyone hate it?
>>>
>>> I'm just a bit behind on mail, but need a clarification - in Maven the XSD
>>> is an end result of the model that is generated, but y
On 7/29/11 7:45 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
thereof? Does anyone hate it?
I'm just a bit behind on mail, but need a clarification - in Maven the XSD is
an end result of the model that is generated, but you seem to describe it here
as an input. Am I misreading?
I've been assuming that the
thereof? Does anyone hate it?
>
> I'm just a bit behind on mail, but need a clarification - in Maven the XSD is
> an end result of the model that is generated, but you seem to describe it
> here as an input. Am I misreading?
I've been assuming that the XSD file is a manual production, but I
didn
d not
>>> implement all the new stuff, but it's worth thinking about it.
>>>
>>> Otoh I'm not sure if such a change should be done in a bugfix release.
>>> Or better said: I'm pretty sure that we should _not_ do such a change in a
>>> b
We of course also should think one step further and also make a check how we
proceed from XSD-4.0.1 to 4.0.2
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Fri, 7/29/11, Benson Margulies wrote:
> From: Benson Margulies
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SCM child-project URL composition
> To: "Maven Developers
e could not
>>> implement all the new stuff, but it's worth thinking about it.
>>>
>>> Otoh I'm not sure if such a change should be done in a bugfix release.
>>> Or better said: I'm pretty sure that we should _not_ do such a change in a
>>
On 29/07/2011, at 9:35 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I'm in favor of the policy (since I suggested it), that maven 3.0.X
> can deliver pom XSD 4.0.Y, where the changes the the XSD are proven to
> be harmless to popular old versions and common sense characterizes
> them as unlikely to blow anythin
be we could not
>> implement all the new stuff, but it's worth thinking about it.
>>
>> Otoh I'm not sure if such a change should be done in a bugfix release.
>> Or better said: I'm pretty sure that we should _not_ do such a change in a
>> bugfix release
LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> --- On Fri, 7/29/11, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> From: Benson Margulies
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SCM child-project URL composition
>> To: "Maven Developers List"
>> Date: Friday, July 29, 2011, 2:01 AM
>> I have some perh
we should _not_ do such a change in a
bugfix release ;)
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Fri, 7/29/11, Benson Margulies wrote:
> From: Benson Margulies
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SCM child-project URL composition
> To: "Maven Developers List"
> Date: Friday, July 29, 2011, 2:01
Hi,
here's a use case/convention which neither the current "append child's
artifactId" strategy nor the "static:" prefix can handle.
The parent project uses something like
/scm-root/
and the modules/children use
/scm-root/modules/${project.artifactId}
IMHO, the only fully flexible solut
wrote:
> From: Hervé BOUTEMY
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SCM child-project URL composition
> To: "Maven Developers List"
> Date: Friday, July 29, 2011, 6:31 AM
> Le vendredi 29 juillet 2011, Mark
> Struberg a écrit :
> > > Is it as simple as that for all SCMs?
> >
ards,
Hervé
[1] http://modello.codehaus.org/modello.html#class_default
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- On Fri, 7/29/11, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> > From: Jason van Zyl
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SCM child-project URL composition
> > To: "Maven Developers
t;
>>>> staticscm:git:ssh://myserver:/..>>>
>>>> resulting in replacing 'staticscm' with 'scm' and not adding the child
>>>> modules to the URL.
>>>> Did I get this correctly?
>>>>
>>>> Tried t
I have some perhaps minor bad news about attributes.
Attributes on the element won't validate against the current
schema. I had hoped to discover otherwise, but no such luck.
The combine.children trick passes because it is inside of the 'any'
inside the plugin configuration.
I claim that the fo
van Zyl wrote:
> From: Jason van Zyl
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SCM child-project URL composition
> To: "Maven Developers List"
> Date: Friday, July 29, 2011, 12:47 AM
>
> On Jul 28, 2011, at 8:31 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
> > Of course, not having to touch the POMs
default implementation is component
that uses regexes that's fine, but if we're thinking of making this pluggable
then I think allowing someone to plug in whatever logic they want would be
useful.
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> --- On Fri, 7/29/11, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>
k for the site URL problematic, because
there is no information about the intention of the user in the pom atm.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Fri, 7/29/11, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> From: Jason van Zyl
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SCM child-project URL composition
> To: "Maven Developers List&q
; So we now have either
>
> A.)
> scm:git:https://...
>
> or
> B.)
> absolute:scm:git:https://...
>
> Please decide folks ;)
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- On Thu, 7/28/11, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
>> From: Stephen Connolly
>> Subject: Re: [DISCU
gt;> So we now have either
>>>
>>> A.)
>>> scm:git:https://...
>>>
>>> or
>>> B.)
>>> absolute:scm:git:https://...
>>>
>>> Please decide folks ;)
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>
>> yup, just fine too with mvn-3.0.3 and mvn-2.2.1.
>>
>> So we now have either
>>
>> A.)
>> scm:git:https://...
>>
>> or
>> B.)
>> absolute:scm:git:https://...
>>
>> Please decide folks ;)
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> st
tps://...
or
B.)
absolute:scm:git:https://...
Please decide folks ;)
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Thu, 7/28/11, Stephen Connolly wrote:
From: Stephen Connolly
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SCM child-project URL composition
To: "Maven Developers List"
Date: Thursday, July 28, 2011, 10:47 PM
i think m
ntent is still a
> valid URL in the sense of RFC-1738. But it's our own
> protocol now ;)
> >>>
> >>> Just my $0.02
> >>>
> >>> LieGrue,
> >>> strub
> >>>
> >>> PS: I really like the 'absolute:'
L in the sense of RFC-1738. But it's our own protocol now ;)
>>>
>>> Just my $0.02
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>> PS: I really like the 'absolute:' protocol name Robert proposed (instead
of 'static:'.
>
Grue,
>> strub
>>
>> PS: I really like the 'absolute:' protocol name Robert proposed (instead of
>> 'static:'.
>
> +1
>
>>
>> --- On Thu, 7/28/11, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>>> From: Benson Margulies
>>> Subje
e,
strub
PS: I really like the 'absolute:' protocol name Robert proposed (instead of
'static:'.
+1
--- On Thu, 7/28/11, Benson Margulies wrote:
From: Benson Margulies
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SCM child-project URL composition
To: "Maven Developers List"
Date: Thu
x27; protocol name Robert proposed (instead of
'static:'.
--- On Thu, 7/28/11, Benson Margulies wrote:
> From: Benson Margulies
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SCM child-project URL composition
> To: "Maven Developers List"
> Date: Thursday, July 28, 2011, 10:0
ersion}/${project.artifactId} or similar.
>>>
>>> So we just came up with "static:" as prefix.
>>>
>>> More soon via Jira.
>>>
>>> LieGrue,
>>> strub
>>>
>>> --- On Thu, 7/28/11, Brian Fox wrote:
>>>
>>
fix.
More soon via Jira.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Thu, 7/28/11, Brian Fox wrote:
From: Brian Fox
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SCM child-project URL composition
To: "Maven Developers List"
Date: Thursday, July 28, 2011, 9:32 PM
not crazy about the syntax, but
generally yes i think tha
h "static:" as prefix.
> >
> > More soon via Jira.
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> > --- On Thu, 7/28/11, Brian Fox
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Brian Fox
> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SCM child-project URL
> composition
&
An example:
staticscm:git:ssh://myserver:/.. wrote:
From: Brian Fox
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SCM child-project URL composition
To: "Maven Developers List"
Date: Thursday, July 28, 2011, 7:23 PM
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 2:59 PM, John
Casey
wrote:
Would it be better to have a syntax to
effective URLs of the sub-module site via
> ${project.version}/${project.artifactId} or similar.
>
> So we just came up with "static:" as prefix.
>
> More soon via Jira.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- On Thu, 7/28/11, Brian Fox wrote:
>
>> From: Bri
rue,
strub
--- On Thu, 7/28/11, Brian Fox wrote:
> From: Brian Fox
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SCM child-project URL composition
> To: "Maven Developers List"
> Date: Thursday, July 28, 2011, 9:32 PM
> not crazy about the syntax, but
> generally yes i think that makes se
ulting in replacing 'staticscm' with 'scm' and not adding the child
>> modules to the URL.
>> Did I get this correctly?
>>
>> Tried that with mvn-3.0.3 and mvn-2.2.1 and a standard build works just
>> fine. Of course a release would only work with the newer
ions!
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> --- On Thu, 7/28/11, Brian Fox wrote:
>
>> From: Brian Fox
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SCM child-project URL composition
>> To: "Maven Developers List"
>> Date: Thursday, July 28, 2011, 7:23 PM
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011
;s an acceptable compromise, personally.
LieGrue,
strub
--- On Thu, 7/28/11, Brian Fox wrote:
From: Brian Fox
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SCM child-project URL composition
To: "Maven Developers List"
Date: Thursday, July 28, 2011, 7:23 PM
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 2:59 PM, John
Casey
wrot
Hi John, Brian
Just to make sure I did understand that correctly:
you propose to use a special URL prefix to tell the maven DefaultProjectBuilder
to treat those urls as static. An example:
staticscm:git:ssh://myserver:/.. wrote:
> From: Brian Fox
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] SCM child-p
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 2:59 PM, John Casey wrote:
> Would it be better to have a syntax to mark a URL as literal, not to be
> calculated or used as the basis of calculation?
>
Yes. I tried to fix this behavior for urls back in ~2.0.6/7 ish and it
broke lots of stuff that depended upon that behav
Would it be better to have a syntax to mark a URL as literal, not to be
calculated or used as the basis of calculation?
That way, we don't have to worry about adjusting to new SCMs or other
places where we want to use it...new SCMs could be added via build
extension, IIRC, so this is particula
Hi!
problem description
---
SCM URLs currently automatically get extended for child modules.
E.g. from
svn://mycompany.com/myproject
in the parent pom, a child module 'frontend' will result in getting a SCM URL
svn://mycompany.com/myproject/frontend
This is fine for SVN and CVS, but b
44 matches
Mail list logo
