Re: [jira] Commented: (TUSCANY-949) Incorrect set of extensions published to the maven repo

[Venkata Krishnan <fo...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

If we admit what Simon has found in the first place is indeed an
inconsistency then I believe we must rectify that and if this patch goes
well that way then it should be committed.  Furthermore, I guess Simon's
gone and spent some valuable time over this patch on our invitation to do
that.  So I think its unfair and discouraging to turn it down now.   Well
that's what I feel from my heart.

- Venkat

On 12/1/06, Rick <cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I feel that M2 should have been (is) in lock down and fixes should only be
> to
> issues that clearly break functionality.  However, we the community SHOULD
> have
> stuck to that position. Given we gave the go ahead to this and two people
> have
> claimed to have tested it and it addresses the issue stated I think we
> should
> accept it.
>
> ant elder wrote:
> > On 11/29/06, Jeremy Boynes <jb...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Nov 29, 2006, at 4:00 AM, ant elder wrote:
> >> > Looks like that answers all the questions and sounds convincing to
> >> > me. We
> >> > discussed doing this the other day and agreed it needed doing and
> >> > based on
> >> > that Simon went ahead and did the work for it, so I think we should
> >> > go ahead
> >> > and apply this to M2 now. Unless there are any other concerns I'll
> >> > do this
> >> > tonight.
> >>
> >> We didn't agree it needed doing. I still don't think it does as I see
> >> no downside to not making this change.
> >>
> >> I have concerns that using profiles this way will cause problems
> >> (e.g. what happens if two profiles include different modules) and I
> >> was hoping Simon had a better solution. I think this approach is
> >> confusing for users as it's not obvious which modules get built and
> >> which don't.
> >>
> >> I am also concerned that there has not been enough testing given we
> >> are so close to release.
> >>
> >> I'm not concerned enough though to veto such a change so if you think
> >> it's the right thing to do then go ahead. I would suggest waiting to
> >> see what the consensus really is.
> >> --
> >> Jeremy
> >
> >
> > I'm reluctant to commit this while you're so against it, but I'm not
> sure I
> > understand your concerns.
> >
> > We did clearly tell Simon to go and make a patch to do this:
> >
> > "<jboynes> simonnash: if you want something different, please give us a
> > patch for the build to build it as YOU want it"
> >
> > and:
> >
> > <simonnash> so in building the release I would expect to select a subset
> of
> > all available modules and copy those selected modules into contrib and
> also
> > deploy htem to maven
> > <jboynes> patches welcome
> > <simonnash> ok i will do what I can.  any help from others will be
> > appreciated.
> >
> > and then the IRC chat summary posted to the dev list clearly said it was
> > happening:
> >
> > "there was some discussion around what Tuscany jars are released as part
> of
> > M2 into the maven repository. Currently everything in the Tuscany build
> is
> > released, should that be trimmed to only those things that we want to
> say
> > are ready? Simon is going to create a patch to the build to make this
> > possible."
> >
> > No one questioned that and in good faith he's gone off and made a patch
> as
> > requested.
> >
> > With the current Axiom issue we have a bit of time now, I've tried the
> > patch
> > and seems to work fine, would you give it a test? What other testing
> would
> > you like to see?
> >
> > Another thing I think we should remember is that this patch is from a
> new
> > contributor so we should be receptive so as to encourage further
> > participation.
> >
> > I'd really appreciate others comments on if we should apply this.
> >
> >   ...ant
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tuscany-dev-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tuscany-dev-help@ws.apache.org
>
>