I only proposed this to keep the information visible, but it makes sence in six month nobody will care about that old plugin version. I didn't know for relocation of plugins.
So i give it +1 Raphaël 2007/9/8, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Rafale, > The history is always going to be available even if we remove it. Also, > relocations for plugins does not currently work. The dependency-maven-plugin > was moved a long time ago from Mojo->Apache so I went through this before. > You can take a look at that project in mojo if you want to see the history. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Raphaël Piéroni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 1:39 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [mojo-dev] [vote] fate of shade plugin > > Hi guys, > > [+0.9] Move the code to Apache > [-0.9] remove it from the mojo svn > [+0.9] Leave the source in the mojo svn > > Explaination: > - Going to apache is cool > - Keeping some infos for history is cool (by moving the code to the > archived state before move) > - Having a relocation for the groupId of plugin is also cool > > If that was for other that these reasons, i would have given +1 > > Regards, > > Raphaël > > > 2007/9/8, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > > > The Maven PMC recently voted on the maven dev list to assume responsibility > > for the shade plugin code. It's up to this group if that transfer results in > > a fork or a source move. > > > > > > > > Vote is open for 72hrs. > > > > > > > > Please vote: > > > > [ ] Move the code to Apache and remove it from the mojo svn > > > > [ ] Leave the source in the mojo svn > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My vote: > > > > [x ] Move the code to Apache and remove it from the mojo svn > > > > > > > > I believe it will be less confusing to have only one copy of the source and > > not to fork it. > > > > >
