You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by simon <si...@chello.at> on 2008/01/03 20:53:25 UTC
Re: svn commit: r608470 -
/commons/proper/commons-parent/trunk/pom.xml
On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 19:46 +0000, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2008 6:56 PM, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > > On Jan 3, 2008 5:00 PM, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> I'd prefer if we could keep the section about
> > >> maven-remote-resources-plugin that is under pluginManagement. That way
> > >> we can ensure that those components that decide to use it, all use the
> > >> same version.
> > >
> > > Currrently all components have license and notice files so better to
> > > wait IMO till we have components wanting to use it first. Given some
> > > of the opinions expressed I would be surprised if any adopted it - or
> > > if they did that there weren't objections.
> >
> > Logging already uses it.
> >
> > The change that I propose does not mean that everyone will automatically
> > start using it. That decision is still up to the developers of each
> > component. But for those components that use, or decide to start using,
> > maven-remote-resources-plugin, it will make their builds more consistent.
>
> I understand but from the various discussions seems clear to me that
> the argument was lost. In the case of Logging I also think it
> confusing that it has Notice and License files in svn but it packages
> up different versions (i.e. those from the apache jar) in its jar.
> Also I just generated the logging jar and the generated Notice file
> included the following which IMO is worse than the one in svn:
>
> This product includes/uses software(s) developed by 'an unknown organization'
> - Unnamed - avalon-framework:avalon-framework:jar:4.1.3
> - Unnamed - log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.12
> - Unnamed - logkit:logkit:jar:1.0.1
>
> So perhaps logging should revert to its svn versions for now until the
> argument for the remote resources plugin is won and that plugin works
> better.
I agree with Niall. I would have voted -1 on the logging release if I
had realised that the Notice/License files were auto-generated. I have
to kick myself for not having found time to check the logging release.
I have seen little positive comment on the remote-resources approach,
certainly no consensus. Therefore there is little point in cluttering up
the poms with stuff that is not (and IMO should not) be used.
Regards,
Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r608470 - /commons/proper/commons-parent/trunk/pom.xml
Posted by sebb <se...@gmail.com>.
On 04/01/2008, Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2008 11:53 AM, simon <si...@chello.at> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 19:46 +0000, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > > On Jan 3, 2008 6:56 PM, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 3, 2008 5:00 PM, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >> I'd prefer if we could keep the section about
> > > > >> maven-remote-resources-plugin that is under pluginManagement. That way
> > > > >> we can ensure that those components that decide to use it, all use the
> > > > >> same version.
> > > > >
> > > > > Currrently all components have license and notice files so better to
> > > > > wait IMO till we have components wanting to use it first. Given some
> > > > > of the opinions expressed I would be surprised if any adopted it - or
> > > > > if they did that there weren't objections.
> > > >
> > > > Logging already uses it.
> > > >
> > > > The change that I propose does not mean that everyone will automatically
> > > > start using it. That decision is still up to the developers of each
> > > > component. But for those components that use, or decide to start using,
> > > > maven-remote-resources-plugin, it will make their builds more consistent.
> > >
> > > I understand but from the various discussions seems clear to me that
> > > the argument was lost. In the case of Logging I also think it
> > > confusing that it has Notice and License files in svn but it packages
> > > up different versions (i.e. those from the apache jar) in its jar.
> > > Also I just generated the logging jar and the generated Notice file
> > > included the following which IMO is worse than the one in svn:
> > >
> > > This product includes/uses software(s) developed by 'an unknown organization'
> > > - Unnamed - avalon-framework:avalon-framework:jar:4.1.3
> > > - Unnamed - log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.12
> > > - Unnamed - logkit:logkit:jar:1.0.1
> > >
> > > So perhaps logging should revert to its svn versions for now until the
> > > argument for the remote resources plugin is won and that plugin works
> > > better.
> >
> > I agree with Niall. I would have voted -1 on the logging release if I
> > had realised that the Notice/License files were auto-generated. I have
> > to kick myself for not having found time to check the logging release.
> >
> > I have seen little positive comment on the remote-resources approach,
> > certainly no consensus. Therefore there is little point in cluttering up
> > the poms with stuff that is not (and IMO should not) be used.
>
> Agreed.
>
> -1 Commons-wide on this. I'm not convinced by the remote resources
> plugin at all.
Agreed.
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r608470 - /commons/proper/commons-parent/trunk/pom.xml
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On Jan 3, 2008 11:53 AM, simon <si...@chello.at> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 19:46 +0000, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 2008 6:56 PM, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > > > On Jan 3, 2008 5:00 PM, Dennis Lundberg <de...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >> I'd prefer if we could keep the section about
> > > >> maven-remote-resources-plugin that is under pluginManagement. That way
> > > >> we can ensure that those components that decide to use it, all use the
> > > >> same version.
> > > >
> > > > Currrently all components have license and notice files so better to
> > > > wait IMO till we have components wanting to use it first. Given some
> > > > of the opinions expressed I would be surprised if any adopted it - or
> > > > if they did that there weren't objections.
> > >
> > > Logging already uses it.
> > >
> > > The change that I propose does not mean that everyone will automatically
> > > start using it. That decision is still up to the developers of each
> > > component. But for those components that use, or decide to start using,
> > > maven-remote-resources-plugin, it will make their builds more consistent.
> >
> > I understand but from the various discussions seems clear to me that
> > the argument was lost. In the case of Logging I also think it
> > confusing that it has Notice and License files in svn but it packages
> > up different versions (i.e. those from the apache jar) in its jar.
> > Also I just generated the logging jar and the generated Notice file
> > included the following which IMO is worse than the one in svn:
> >
> > This product includes/uses software(s) developed by 'an unknown organization'
> > - Unnamed - avalon-framework:avalon-framework:jar:4.1.3
> > - Unnamed - log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.12
> > - Unnamed - logkit:logkit:jar:1.0.1
> >
> > So perhaps logging should revert to its svn versions for now until the
> > argument for the remote resources plugin is won and that plugin works
> > better.
>
> I agree with Niall. I would have voted -1 on the logging release if I
> had realised that the Notice/License files were auto-generated. I have
> to kick myself for not having found time to check the logging release.
>
> I have seen little positive comment on the remote-resources approach,
> certainly no consensus. Therefore there is little point in cluttering up
> the poms with stuff that is not (and IMO should not) be used.
Agreed.
-1 Commons-wide on this. I'm not convinced by the remote resources
plugin at all.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org