Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-12 Thread Phil Steitz
On Jan 12, 2008 3:37 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/12/08, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 12, 2008 3:25 PM, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I don't see the point of that at all. Commons-xxx projects do not exist > > > for the purposes of testin

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-12 Thread Rahul Akolkar
On 1/12/08, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 12, 2008 3:25 PM, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't see the point of that at all. Commons-xxx projects do not exist > > for the purposes of testing maven plugins. If commons-xxx can build > > successfully with version N of

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-12 Thread Rahul Akolkar
On 1/11/08, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rahul Akolkar wrote: > > On 1/11/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Jan 11, 2008 10:06 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> On Jan 11, 2008 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> >

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-12 Thread Dennis Lundberg
simon wrote: On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 14:38 +0100, Dennis Lundberg wrote: simon wrote: On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 00:20 +, Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 11, 2008 11:29 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Jan 11, 2008 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTE

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-12 Thread Dennis Lundberg
Niall Pemberton wrote: I just made some more changes to commons-parent: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=611126 This includes the "hack" to put the NOTICE/LICENSE files in the javadoc jar (which Dennis was -1 to, but three people agreed). See http://tinyurl.com/2zueu5 for all cha

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-12 Thread Jochen Wiedmann
On Jan 12, 2008 3:25 PM, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't see the point of that at all. Commons-xxx projects do not exist > for the purposes of testing maven plugins. If commons-xxx can build > successfully with version N of a plugin, then there is no reason to ever > use any other versi

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-12 Thread Jochen Wiedmann
On Jan 12, 2008 2:33 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > This is not quite the case - reproducability is the reason for > > specifying the version, but not the reason for specifying the version > > in the parent pom. The reason for specifying version numbers

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-12 Thread simon
On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 14:38 +0100, Dennis Lundberg wrote: > simon wrote: > > On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 00:20 +, Niall Pemberton wrote: > >> On Jan 11, 2008 11:29 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > On Jan 11, 2008 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PRO

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-12 Thread Dennis Lundberg
Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Jan 12, 2008 12:29 AM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The reason is to have reproducible builds. It makes sure that, no matter who is building component A, the end result will always be the same. Specifying versions for all plugins is considered a best pra

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-12 Thread Dennis Lundberg
simon wrote: On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 00:20 +, Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 11, 2008 11:29 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Jan 11, 2008 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Theres also the issue of specifying the "version" of the rem

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-12 Thread Dennis Lundberg
Niall Pemberton wrote: On Jan 11, 2008 11:29 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Jan 11, 2008 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Theres also the issue of specifying the "version" of the remote-resources-plugin - which in previous discussi

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-12 Thread simon
On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 00:20 +, Niall Pemberton wrote: > On Jan 11, 2008 11:29 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > > > On Jan 11, 2008 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> Theres also the issue of specifying the "version" of t

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-11 Thread Jochen Wiedmann
On Jan 12, 2008 12:29 AM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The reason is to have reproducible builds. It makes sure that, no matter > who is building component A, the end result will always be the same. > > Specifying versions for all plugins is considered a best practice. This > has b

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-11 Thread Niall Pemberton
On Jan 11, 2008 11:29 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > > On Jan 11, 2008 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Theres also the issue of specifying the "version" of the > >> remote-resources-plugin - which in previous discussions peopl

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-11 Thread Dennis Lundberg
Rahul Akolkar wrote: On 1/11/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jan 11, 2008 10:06 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Jan 11, 2008 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Theres also the issue of specifying the "version" of the remote-resources-plugi

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-11 Thread Dennis Lundberg
Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On Jan 11, 2008 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Theres also the issue of specifying the "version" of the remote-resources-plugin - which in previous discussions people objected to. Please Note this is not configuring commons-parent to *use* that plugi

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-11 Thread Rahul Akolkar
On 1/11/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK revised changes since commons-parent-6 is here: http://tinyurl.com/2v5lnh > > (I left in the javadoc plugin as that takes part in the build too?) > Don't know, but thanks for pushing this along (other changed look good to me). -Rahul

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-11 Thread Rahul Akolkar
On 1/11/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 11, 2008 10:06 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 11, 2008 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Theres also the issue of specifying the "version" of the > > > remote-resources-plugin - w

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-11 Thread Niall Pemberton
On Jan 11, 2008 10:50 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 11, 2008 10:47 AM, Jörg Schaible > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Niall, > > > > > > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > > I just made some more changes to commons-parent: > > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-11 Thread Niall Pemberton
On Jan 11, 2008 10:47 AM, Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Niall, > > > Niall Pemberton wrote: > > I just made some more changes to commons-parent: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=611126 > > > > This includes the "hack" to put the NOTICE/LICENSE files in the > > ja

RE: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-11 Thread Jörg Schaible
Hi Niall, Niall Pemberton wrote: > I just made some more changes to commons-parent: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=611126 > > This includes the "hack" to put the NOTICE/LICENSE files in the > javadoc jar (which Dennis was -1 to, but three people agreed). See > http://tinyurl.c

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-11 Thread Niall Pemberton
On Jan 11, 2008 10:06 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 11, 2008 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Theres also the issue of specifying the "version" of the > > remote-resources-plugin - which in previous discussions people > > objected to. Please Note

Re: commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-11 Thread Jochen Wiedmann
On Jan 11, 2008 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Theres also the issue of specifying the "version" of the > remote-resources-plugin - which in previous discussions people > objected to. Please Note this is not configuring commons-parent to > *use* that plugin - but just to sp

commons-parent-7 discussion

2008-01-11 Thread Niall Pemberton
I just made some more changes to commons-parent: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=611126 This includes the "hack" to put the NOTICE/LICENSE files in the javadoc jar (which Dennis was -1 to, but three people agreed). See http://tinyurl.com/2zueu5 for all changes since commons-parent