On 04/01/2008, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 3, 2008 11:53 AM, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 19:46 +0000, Niall Pemberton wrote: > > > On Jan 3, 2008 6:56 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > > > > On Jan 3, 2008 5:00 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >> I'd prefer if we could keep the section about > > > > >> maven-remote-resources-plugin that is under pluginManagement. That > > > > >> way > > > > >> we can ensure that those components that decide to use it, all use > > > > >> the > > > > >> same version. > > > > > > > > > > Currrently all components have license and notice files so better to > > > > > wait IMO till we have components wanting to use it first. Given some > > > > > of the opinions expressed I would be surprised if any adopted it - or > > > > > if they did that there weren't objections. > > > > > > > > Logging already uses it. > > > > > > > > The change that I propose does not mean that everyone will automatically > > > > start using it. That decision is still up to the developers of each > > > > component. But for those components that use, or decide to start using, > > > > maven-remote-resources-plugin, it will make their builds more > > > > consistent. > > > > > > I understand but from the various discussions seems clear to me that > > > the argument was lost. In the case of Logging I also think it > > > confusing that it has Notice and License files in svn but it packages > > > up different versions (i.e. those from the apache jar) in its jar. > > > Also I just generated the logging jar and the generated Notice file > > > included the following which IMO is worse than the one in svn: > > > > > > This product includes/uses software(s) developed by 'an unknown > > > organization' > > > - Unnamed - avalon-framework:avalon-framework:jar:4.1.3 > > > - Unnamed - log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.12 > > > - Unnamed - logkit:logkit:jar:1.0.1 > > > > > > So perhaps logging should revert to its svn versions for now until the > > > argument for the remote resources plugin is won and that plugin works > > > better. > > > > I agree with Niall. I would have voted -1 on the logging release if I > > had realised that the Notice/License files were auto-generated. I have > > to kick myself for not having found time to check the logging release. > > > > I have seen little positive comment on the remote-resources approach, > > certainly no consensus. Therefore there is little point in cluttering up > > the poms with stuff that is not (and IMO should not) be used. > > Agreed. > > -1 Commons-wide on this. I'm not convinced by the remote resources > plugin at all.
Agreed. > Hen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
