so I understad why you're worried about it :)
I'm going to rollback last pom commit
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:01 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 24 March 2011 09:42, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> Hi Jorg,
>> I agree with you, but I think w
On 24 March 2011 09:42, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Hi Jorg,
> I agree with you, but I think we've enough flexibility that if the
> component needs to override the groupId, simply redeclare it.
If the groupId is omitted, it's not clear whether the omission is
deliberate or was accidentally deleted.
Hi Jorg,
I agree with you, but I think we've enough flexibility that if the
component needs to override the groupId, simply redeclare it.
BTW If we're changing the parent reference, maybe we need to to review
the whole set of metadata, I won't expect that a component is released
with overlooked gr
sebb wrote:
> On 24 March 2011 00:09, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:05 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 23 March 2011 23:37, Simone Tripodi wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:28 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 23 March 2011 23:14, Simone Tripodi
> wrote:
>> I think maven bes
On 24 March 2011 00:09, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:05 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 23 March 2011 23:37, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:28 AM, sebb wrote:
On 23 March 2011 23:14, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> I think maven best practice would suggest t
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:05 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 23 March 2011 23:37, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:28 AM, sebb wrote:
>>> On 23 March 2011 23:14, Simone Tripodi wrote:
I think maven best practice would suggest to avoid groupId duplication
- for pool2 we agreed
On 23 March 2011 23:37, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:28 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 23 March 2011 23:14, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>> I think maven best practice would suggest to avoid groupId duplication
>>> - for pool2 we agreed to switch to o.a.c groupId.
>>> which problems are y
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:28 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 23 March 2011 23:14, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> I think maven best practice would suggest to avoid groupId duplication
>> - for pool2 we agreed to switch to o.a.c groupId.
>> which problems are you speaking about? I'm asking because I would have
>>
On 23 March 2011 23:14, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> I think maven best practice would suggest to avoid groupId duplication
> - for pool2 we agreed to switch to o.a.c groupId.
> which problems are you speaking about? I'm asking because I would have
> missed something I don't know yet.
I just mean that
I think maven best practice would suggest to avoid groupId duplication
- for pool2 we agreed to switch to o.a.c groupId.
which problems are you speaking about? I'm asking because I would have
missed something I don't know yet.
BTW, the MavenIDE suggested me suppressing the groupId duplication:
De
On 23 March 2011 22:09, wrote:
> Author: simonetripodi
> Date: Wed Mar 23 22:09:07 2011
> New Revision: 1084776
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1084776&view=rev
> Log:
> groupId inherited from parent pom
That is true, but I think it's best to be specific in this case.
The wrong groupId
11 matches
Mail list logo
