Bruce,
Please see below:
Draft Policy(?):
http://www.apache.org/dev/repository-faq.html
Thread:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=115669727800005&r=1&w=2
First email:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-general&m=115669716709268&w=2
Please read this email:
http://marc.info/?l=incubator-general&m=112355163632367&w=2
In this thread:
http://marc.info/?t=112326559200004&r=1&w=2
thanks,
dims
On 3/15/07, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan,
>
> thanks for being the amazing fount of wisdom and berating our "silly
> idea." Please see below.
>
> On 3/15/07, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/15/07, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > "It's even knowing that you need to add another repo,"
> > >
> > > [DIMS] This is by design.
> >
> >
> > As everyone else is saying, its a silly design. The version/artifactId
> > clearly as "incubator" in it. People know they're using an incubating
> > project.
>
> This is NOT enough. How many times should i say it? (2 cents)
>
> > " it's pinging that repo every time you build looking for every other
> > > artifact"
> > >
> > > [DIMS] Please file a maven2 bug report for this.
> >
> >
> > NOT a bug. You can't just assume that because the jar wasn't there the last
> > time, it won't be there again. You also can't make any assumptions that one
> > repo mirrors another. There is NO way around this.
>
> You need to be able to say, for these artifacts looks ONLY in this
> repository and Look ONLY for these specified artifacts in this
> repository. Guess an idiot like me won't understand such complicated
> beautiful setup like maven
>
> > "it's not having any alternative when the people.apache.org is
> > > inaccessible (and this happens a lot)."
> > >
> > > [DIMS] Please raise this as an infrastructure issue. Here am assuming
> > > you are talking about snapshots. That problem will exist no matter
> > > what since no one with the right head will publish snapshots to the
> > > central repo.
> >
> >
> > Not really. In CXF we don't depend on any SNAPSHOTS and most people in
> > general tend to shy away from them.
>
> The issue here was how other projects use cxf artifacts like Geronimo.
> Not how you use other projects. Don't know if you have a clue on how
> much pain m2 has inflicted on Geronimo folks. Guess that's for another
> thread.
>
> > +1 to getting rid of the m2 incubator repository. Its well intentioned, but
> > ultimately a silly idea.
>
> Thanks we take our job seriously and we have nothing else to do but
> sit around and come up with silly ideas.
I don't believe that Dan attacked anyone personally, so I don't think
that attacking him is appropriate. He's simply referring to the
Incubator repo policy. And, FWIW, I still don't see the benefit to
having a separate repo, especially when it confuses users.
Nobody answered my question previously, so I'll ask it again - has there ever
been a situation that necessitated this policy? How was this policy
born? Was it voted in as a policy? If so, why is it not documented
somewhere?
Please bear in mind, I'm asking innocent questions to which I don't
know the answers. I'm asking for someone to help me understand the
history behind this policy.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL
PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/
Castor - http://castor.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Davanum Srinivas :: http://wso2.org/ :: Oxygen for Web Services Developers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
