You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@maven.apache.org by Vincent Siveton <vs...@apache.org> on 2008/05/22 04:47:06 UTC
What is the official Eclipse repo layout (was: How to use central repo into an Eclipse project?)
Hi Arnaud and others,
What is the "official" Eclipse repo layout? According [1] and [2], [1]
seems the official. What others thinks?
For instance, with [1]
<groupId>org.eclipse.equinox</groupId>
<artifactId>app</artifactId>
and with [2]
<groupId>org.eclipse.equinox</groupId>
<artifactId>org.eclipse.equinox.app</artifactId>
Cheers,
Vincent
[1] mvn eclipse:to-maven
http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-eclipse-plugin/to-maven-mojo.html
[2] mvn eclipse:make-artifacts
http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-eclipse-plugin/make-artifacts-mojo.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: What is the official Eclipse repo layout (was: How to use central
repo into an Eclipse project?)
Posted by Igor Fedorenko <ig...@ifedorenko.com>.
I do agree with "artifactId == bundle symbolic name" (you meant "bundle
symbolic name", not "bundle id", right?) but I think there is more to it.
Consider the following four usecase
* Create new Maven artifact from existing eclipse/osgi bundle. This
happens when eclipse bundles are deployed into a maven repository, for
example.
* Create new eclipse/osgi bundle from existing maven artifact. This
happens when eclipse/osgi bundles are built from maven artifacts using
Felix/BND or Tycho.
* Reference eclipse/osgi bundle from maven project (i.e. as a dependency
in pom.xml). This is trivial if eclipse/osgi bundles have been deployed
into maven repository. Becomes slightly more interesting if we want to
consume bundles directly from P2 repository or local eclipse install.
* Reference existing maven artifact from eclipse/osgi bundle. This
usecase is particular tricky because there is no way I can think of to
derive groupId and classifier of the referenced artifact from
information available from manifest of this bundle. So we either need to
have one-to-one relationship between bundle symbolic name and
groupId/artifactId/classifier or instrument repository manager to
provide osgi-specific metadata.
Each of these usecase is relatively simple to address individually, but
things become more complicated if, for example, somebody wants to create
eclipse/osgi bundle from maven project using Tycho, then deploy this
bundle(!) into maven repository and reference it from another maven project.
Has anyone looked at making such roundtrip work?
Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On 21-May-08, at 8:23 PM, Barrie Treloar wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Vincent Siveton
>> <vs...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Arnaud and others,
>>>
>>> What is the "official" Eclipse repo layout? According [1] and [2], [1]
>>> seems the official. What others thinks?
>>
>> Jason was meant to get back to the list about this.
>>
>
> It's not very complicated what we discussed. Essentially it's artifactId
> = symbolic bundle id because you'll never be able to derive the
> artifactId/groupId pair from a symbolic bundle id because you don't know
> where to split it. So avoid the complication of the mapping. The groupId
> would be use for organization in the repository but not important in the
> creation of the symbolic bundle id. What this means is that you could
> directly retrieve a bundle into a running osgi container without trying
> to synthesize the bundle id which is a good thing.
>
>> I haven't noticed it yet, but I'm pretty blind when looking through
>> mail headers :)
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: What is the official Eclipse repo layout (was: How to use central repo into an Eclipse project?)
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On 22-May-08, at 8:10 AM, Tom Huybrechts wrote:
> Here's my 2c.
>
> - Bundle-SymbolicName = artifactId is a no-brainer IMHO
> - groupId should be the organization creating the bundle (so when
> converting an existing library, the organization that does the
> converting)
> - Bundle-Version = version - somebody once proposed dropping the
> qualifier but then you loose tracability
>
Here I'm also not opposed to just adopting OSGi versioning to make
life easier. I'm not sure there is any advantage to having N
versioning schemes.
> - The generated POMs are also open for debate. I believe
> ecipse:to-maven only looks at the manifest and generates dependencies
> from Require-Bundle, but it ignores Import-Package headers. For
> versions it creates Maven ranges, but these were unusable without
> specifying a zillion excludes (at least in 2.0.8). My approach with
> Tycho is different. I would start with a consistent install (e.g. the
> full Ganymede release). Tycho's uploader will first perform resolve
> these bundles against each other using OSGi rules, to decide what the
> actual dependencies are. The POM dependencies are calculated based on
> this dependency graph.
>
> - For RCP developers, we should also decide what the Eclipse features
> should look like in the repository. E.g. upload a full feature zip or
> just a POM that has dependencies on all the member plugins
>
> - Regarding all the different bundleizations (is that a word?) that
> are or will be available for some common libraries: I'm afraid this
> will only be solved when libraries start producing OSGi artifacts
> themselves. Perhaps the new spring osgi repository will also help to
> standardize.
>
> Tom
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 22/05/2008, at 2:48 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 21-May-08, at 9:23 PM, Barrie Treloar wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not very complicated what we discussed. Essentially it's
>>>>> artifactId
>>>>> =
>>>>> symbolic bundle id because you'll never be able to derive the
>>>>> artifactId/groupId pair from a symbolic bundle id because you
>>>>> don't know
>>>>> where to split it. So avoid the complication of the mapping. The
>>>>> groupId
>>>>> would be use for organization in the repository but not
>>>>> important in the
>>>>> creation of the symbolic bundle id. What this means is that you
>>>>> could
>>>>> directly retrieve a bundle into a running osgi container without
>>>>> trying
>>>>> to
>>>>> synthesize the bundle id which is a good thing.
>>>>
>>>> Next question then,
>>>>
>>>> when can we seed a maven repository with bundles?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Officially? When we agree. This was a casual discussion we had at
>>> EclipseCon. Probably wouldn't take long. I imagine most issues
>>> could be
>>> hashed out in a week and then we could try it in a test repository
>>> on
>>> central.
>>
>> Sounds like a good approach to me. Perfect timing with the Ganymede
>> release
>> coming up soon - we could get that release in there, and get it
>> right from
>> there on.
>>
>> So far the proposal seems to be:
>> - use artifact IDs that most match the final identifiers
>> - discourage the use of http://repo1.maven.org/eclipse/ and
>> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/eclipse/ with the old artifact IDs
>>
>> The questions I have so far:
>>
>> Are the POMs generated by today's eclipse:to-maven goal the right
>> ones to be
>> using? I'm particularly wondering about the version range issue
>> Vincent
>> raised.
>>
>> What is the policy on bundle-ized versions of existing artifacts?
>> The above
>> sounds good for org.eclipse itself, but having stuff like this is
>> worrying:
>> http://repo1.maven.org/eclipse/org/apache/ant/org.apache.ant/1.6.5/
>> Worrying because we start duplicating an awful lot of stuff. Is it
>> possible
>> we could place the OSGi manifest in the repository alongside main
>> ant and
>> the build process could merge them? And for artifacts that don't
>> have them,
>> we can generate default OSGi manifest information if incorporated
>> into such
>> a build?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Brett
>>
>> --
>> Brett Porter
>> brett@apache.org
>> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come
and sit softly on your shoulder ...
-- Thoreau
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: What is the official Eclipse repo layout (was: How to use central repo into an Eclipse project?)
Posted by Tom Huybrechts <to...@gmail.com>.
Here's my 2c.
- Bundle-SymbolicName = artifactId is a no-brainer IMHO
- groupId should be the organization creating the bundle (so when
converting an existing library, the organization that does the
converting)
- Bundle-Version = version - somebody once proposed dropping the
qualifier but then you loose tracability
- The generated POMs are also open for debate. I believe
ecipse:to-maven only looks at the manifest and generates dependencies
from Require-Bundle, but it ignores Import-Package headers. For
versions it creates Maven ranges, but these were unusable without
specifying a zillion excludes (at least in 2.0.8). My approach with
Tycho is different. I would start with a consistent install (e.g. the
full Ganymede release). Tycho's uploader will first perform resolve
these bundles against each other using OSGi rules, to decide what the
actual dependencies are. The POM dependencies are calculated based on
this dependency graph.
- For RCP developers, we should also decide what the Eclipse features
should look like in the repository. E.g. upload a full feature zip or
just a POM that has dependencies on all the member plugins
- Regarding all the different bundleizations (is that a word?) that
are or will be available for some common libraries: I'm afraid this
will only be solved when libraries start producing OSGi artifacts
themselves. Perhaps the new spring osgi repository will also help to
standardize.
Tom
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 22/05/2008, at 2:48 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>
>> On 21-May-08, at 9:23 PM, Barrie Treloar wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It's not very complicated what we discussed. Essentially it's artifactId
>>>> =
>>>> symbolic bundle id because you'll never be able to derive the
>>>> artifactId/groupId pair from a symbolic bundle id because you don't know
>>>> where to split it. So avoid the complication of the mapping. The groupId
>>>> would be use for organization in the repository but not important in the
>>>> creation of the symbolic bundle id. What this means is that you could
>>>> directly retrieve a bundle into a running osgi container without trying
>>>> to
>>>> synthesize the bundle id which is a good thing.
>>>
>>> Next question then,
>>>
>>> when can we seed a maven repository with bundles?
>>>
>>
>> Officially? When we agree. This was a casual discussion we had at
>> EclipseCon. Probably wouldn't take long. I imagine most issues could be
>> hashed out in a week and then we could try it in a test repository on
>> central.
>
> Sounds like a good approach to me. Perfect timing with the Ganymede release
> coming up soon - we could get that release in there, and get it right from
> there on.
>
> So far the proposal seems to be:
> - use artifact IDs that most match the final identifiers
> - discourage the use of http://repo1.maven.org/eclipse/ and
> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/eclipse/ with the old artifact IDs
>
> The questions I have so far:
>
> Are the POMs generated by today's eclipse:to-maven goal the right ones to be
> using? I'm particularly wondering about the version range issue Vincent
> raised.
>
> What is the policy on bundle-ized versions of existing artifacts? The above
> sounds good for org.eclipse itself, but having stuff like this is worrying:
> http://repo1.maven.org/eclipse/org/apache/ant/org.apache.ant/1.6.5/
> Worrying because we start duplicating an awful lot of stuff. Is it possible
> we could place the OSGi manifest in the repository alongside main ant and
> the build process could merge them? And for artifacts that don't have them,
> we can generate default OSGi manifest information if incorporated into such
> a build?
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@apache.org
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: What is the official Eclipse repo layout (was: How to use central repo into an Eclipse project?)
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 22/05/2008, at 2:48 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On 21-May-08, at 9:23 PM, Barrie Treloar wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>
>> wrote:
>>> It's not very complicated what we discussed. Essentially it's
>>> artifactId =
>>> symbolic bundle id because you'll never be able to derive the
>>> artifactId/groupId pair from a symbolic bundle id because you
>>> don't know
>>> where to split it. So avoid the complication of the mapping. The
>>> groupId
>>> would be use for organization in the repository but not important
>>> in the
>>> creation of the symbolic bundle id. What this means is that you
>>> could
>>> directly retrieve a bundle into a running osgi container without
>>> trying to
>>> synthesize the bundle id which is a good thing.
>>
>> Next question then,
>>
>> when can we seed a maven repository with bundles?
>>
>
> Officially? When we agree. This was a casual discussion we had at
> EclipseCon. Probably wouldn't take long. I imagine most issues could
> be hashed out in a week and then we could try it in a test
> repository on central.
Sounds like a good approach to me. Perfect timing with the Ganymede
release coming up soon - we could get that release in there, and get
it right from there on.
So far the proposal seems to be:
- use artifact IDs that most match the final identifiers
- discourage the use of http://repo1.maven.org/eclipse/ and http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/eclipse/
with the old artifact IDs
The questions I have so far:
Are the POMs generated by today's eclipse:to-maven goal the right ones
to be using? I'm particularly wondering about the version range issue
Vincent raised.
What is the policy on bundle-ized versions of existing artifacts? The
above sounds good for org.eclipse itself, but having stuff like this
is worrying: http://repo1.maven.org/eclipse/org/apache/ant/org.apache.ant/1.6.5/
Worrying because we start duplicating an awful lot of stuff. Is it
possible we could place the OSGi manifest in the repository alongside
main ant and the build process could merge them? And for artifacts
that don't have them, we can generate default OSGi manifest
information if incorporated into such a build?
Cheers,
Brett
--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: What is the official Eclipse repo layout (was: How to use
central repo into an Eclipse project?)
Posted by lukewpatterson <lu...@gmail.com>.
With the
<groupId>org.eclipse.equinox</groupId>
<artifactId>org.eclipse.equinox.app</artifactId>
example, it seems like the conventional configuration would become
<groupId>someGroupId</groupId>
<artifactId>${project.groupId}.someArtifactId</artifactId>.
Is that correct?
What should something like SWT look like?
<groupId>org.eclipse.swt</groupId>
<artifactId>org.eclipse.swt</artifactId>
[1]
or
<groupId>org.eclipse</groupId>
<artifactId>swt</artifactId>
[2]
or
<groupId>org.eclipse</groupId>
<artifactId>org.eclipse.swt</artifactId>
?
Relocation poms would be very helpful if any coordinates change during this
process. As it is now, I have a lot of exclusion filters for my transitive
mixed-coordinate eclipse dependencies.
Thanks,
Luke
[1] - versions 3.2.0 and 3.2.1 @ http://repo1.maven.org/eclipse/
[2] - versions 3.3.0-v3339b, 3.3.0-v3345b and 3.3.0-v3346
@http://repo1.maven.org/eclipse/, versions 3.2.1-v3235e and 3.3.0-v3346
@http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/What-is-the-official-Eclipse-repo-layout-%28was%3A-How-to-use-central-repo-into-an-Eclipse-project-%29-tp17396298p18784119.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: What is the official Eclipse repo layout (was: How to use central repo into an Eclipse project?)
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On 21-May-08, at 9:23 PM, Barrie Treloar wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>
> wrote:
>> It's not very complicated what we discussed. Essentially it's
>> artifactId =
>> symbolic bundle id because you'll never be able to derive the
>> artifactId/groupId pair from a symbolic bundle id because you don't
>> know
>> where to split it. So avoid the complication of the mapping. The
>> groupId
>> would be use for organization in the repository but not important
>> in the
>> creation of the symbolic bundle id. What this means is that you could
>> directly retrieve a bundle into a running osgi container without
>> trying to
>> synthesize the bundle id which is a good thing.
>
> Next question then,
>
> when can we seed a maven repository with bundles?
>
Officially? When we agree. This was a casual discussion we had at
EclipseCon. Probably wouldn't take long. I imagine most issues could
be hashed out in a week and then we could try it in a test repository
on central.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
believe nothing, no matter where you read it,
or who has said it,
not even if i have said it,
unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense.
-- Buddha
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: What is the official Eclipse repo layout (was: How to use central repo into an Eclipse project?)
Posted by Vincent Siveton <vi...@gmail.com>.
2008/5/22, Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
> > It's not very complicated what we discussed. Essentially it's artifactId =
> > symbolic bundle id because you'll never be able to derive the
> > artifactId/groupId pair from a symbolic bundle id because you don't know
> > where to split it. So avoid the complication of the mapping. The groupId
> > would be use for organization in the repository but not important in the
> > creation of the symbolic bundle id. What this means is that you could
> > directly retrieve a bundle into a running osgi container without trying to
> > synthesize the bundle id which is a good thing.
>
>
> Next question then,
>
> when can we seed a maven repository with bundles?
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/eclipse/
vs
http://repository.sonatype.org:8081/nexus/content/groups/maven-eclipse
Vincent
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: What is the official Eclipse repo layout (was: How to use central repo into an Eclipse project?)
Posted by Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
> It's not very complicated what we discussed. Essentially it's artifactId =
> symbolic bundle id because you'll never be able to derive the
> artifactId/groupId pair from a symbolic bundle id because you don't know
> where to split it. So avoid the complication of the mapping. The groupId
> would be use for organization in the repository but not important in the
> creation of the symbolic bundle id. What this means is that you could
> directly retrieve a bundle into a running osgi container without trying to
> synthesize the bundle id which is a good thing.
Next question then,
when can we seed a maven repository with bundles?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: What is the official Eclipse repo layout (was: How to use central repo into an Eclipse project?)
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On 21-May-08, at 8:23 PM, Barrie Treloar wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Vincent Siveton
> <vs...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi Arnaud and others,
>>
>> What is the "official" Eclipse repo layout? According [1] and [2],
>> [1]
>> seems the official. What others thinks?
>
> Jason was meant to get back to the list about this.
>
It's not very complicated what we discussed. Essentially it's
artifactId = symbolic bundle id because you'll never be able to derive
the artifactId/groupId pair from a symbolic bundle id because you
don't know where to split it. So avoid the complication of the
mapping. The groupId would be use for organization in the repository
but not important in the creation of the symbolic bundle id. What this
means is that you could directly retrieve a bundle into a running osgi
container without trying to synthesize the bundle id which is a good
thing.
> I haven't noticed it yet, but I'm pretty blind when looking through
> mail headers :)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
A party which is not afraid of letting culture,
business, and welfare go to ruin completely can
be omnipotent for a while.
-- Jakob Burckhardt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: What is the official Eclipse repo layout (was: How to use central repo into an Eclipse project?)
Posted by Barrie Treloar <ba...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Vincent Siveton <vs...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Arnaud and others,
>
> What is the "official" Eclipse repo layout? According [1] and [2], [1]
> seems the official. What others thinks?
Jason was meant to get back to the list about this.
I haven't noticed it yet, but I'm pretty blind when looking through
mail headers :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: What is the official Eclipse repo layout (was: How to use central repo into an Eclipse project?)
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
I believe it's the latter.
This is very reminiscent of the scenario encountered in NMaven - it
seems it makes most sense to specify it in the Maven using the first
format, but that the repository layout should use the fully qualified
name for the file itself.
Maybe a different repo layout is in order?
- Brett
On 22/05/2008, at 12:47 PM, Vincent Siveton wrote:
> Hi Arnaud and others,
>
> What is the "official" Eclipse repo layout? According [1] and [2], [1]
> seems the official. What others thinks?
>
> For instance, with [1]
> <groupId>org.eclipse.equinox</groupId>
> <artifactId>app</artifactId>
> and with [2]
> <groupId>org.eclipse.equinox</groupId>
> <artifactId>org.eclipse.equinox.app</artifactId>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Vincent
>
> [1] mvn eclipse:to-maven
> http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-eclipse-plugin/to-maven-
> mojo.html
>
> [2] mvn eclipse:make-artifacts
> http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-eclipse-plugin/make-artifacts-mojo.html
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org