On 2/21/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The Trinidad community voted to release the the maven
plugins as a 1.0.0-incubating release. These plugins are required for the maven
build of the "core" code of the Trinidad Podling. To fulfill the incubator
guides, we like to ask you gu
On 22 Feb 07, at 1:23 PM 22 Feb 07, Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
Trustin Lee wrote:
I agree with the idea on extending a parent POM generally, but
org.apache:apache-incubator might be more reasonable for the projects
under incubation.
I agree. Having an Incubator POM that includes the necessary
Trustin Lee wrote:
I agree with the idea on extending a parent POM generally, but
org.apache:apache-incubator might be more reasonable for the projects
under incubation.
I agree. Having an Incubator POM that includes the necessary stuff like
the Maven remote resources, GPG and RAT plugin config
If we end up switching to the main repos, then I think the pom would
be fairly empty as the values in apache:3 would be reusable. I still
think it is worth having as it ties the podling back to the offical
project that is doing the releases.
If we keep as we are, the repository, pluginRepos
On Thursday 22 February 2007 06:14, Trustin Lee wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2007-02-22 (목), 05:08 -0500, Daniel Kulp 쓰시길:
> > While looking at the Trinidad stuff, I had some thoughts about
> > requirements around pom files for Apache stuff and what "requirements"
> > should be imposed.
> >
> > There are sever
On Feb 22, 2007, at 2:08 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
NOTE: Both (1) and (2) can be taken care of by having the
org.apache:apache:3
artifact as the parent.Should that be a requirement?
(Actually, should
there be an incubator parent that lives in the middle?)
I made a start on such a pom
Hi,
2007-02-22 (목), 05:08 -0500, Daniel Kulp 쓰시길:
> While looking at the Trinidad stuff, I had some thoughts about requirements
> around pom files for Apache stuff and what "requirements" should be imposed.
>
> There are several things in a pom file that could affect how things appear
> when so
I see
sounds nice
(I will add the to our trunk )
-M
On 2/22/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 22 February 2007 05:30, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > 4) element should be there and point to the proper homepage
>
> isn't optional ?
Yes, but with a proper URL, tools can
On Thursday 22 February 2007 05:30, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> > 4) element should be there and point to the proper homepage
>
> isn't optional ?
Yes, but with a proper URL, tools can point back to the project. Example is
the dependency report which will provide a link back to the project.
Even though I already voted : +1
(also after checking the improved javadoc files)
Mvgr,
Martin
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> The Trinidad community voted to release the the maven
> plugins as a 1.0.0-incubating release. These plugins are required for
> the maven
> build of the "core" code of the T
1) organization element: Somewhere up the heirarchy, we need to have:
The Apache Software Foundation
http://www.apache.org/
2) licenses element: Somewhere up the heirarchy, we need to have:
The Apache Software License, Version 2.0
ht
While looking at the Trinidad stuff, I had some thoughts about requirements
around pom files for Apache stuff and what "requirements" should be imposed.
There are several things in a pom file that could affect how things appear
when someone takes a dependency on an Apache project. Thus, we ne
I uploaded new artifacts. the difference is that they now have your
suggested stuff in
(the javadoc-jars have the files.)
thanks for pointing me to the "maven-remote-resources-plugin"
(I missed your maven list mail)
-Matthias
On 2/22/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
First look note
First look notes:
None of the javadoc jars have the required NOTICE/LICENSE/DISCLAIMER in them.
I saw your note on the maven list about the bug in javadoc plugin, but I did
provide a way to get them there. [1] Another alternative is to remove
the javadoc jars and not release them.
In
14 matches
Mail list logo
