Who owns the metadata

[Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org>]

Antoine Levy-Lambert wrote:

> This is a valid point. Ideally POMs should only come from the project
> releasing the binaries, not from its users.

SHOULD as opposed to MUST, in RFC terms.

Nobody wants to write the POMs, but as Maven effectively forces you to 
get all your dependencies from a repository, if you want to build with 
something, you need the Pom in there, even if it is a stub with no 
dependencies (which are how most of my poms are, BTW). By letting users 
contribute that stuff back, only one person has to do the work.

The hope is that that one person gets it right, else a mistake is hard 
coded in wrong, forever.

> 
> I myself sent an upload request for jsch with initially a wrong groupId
> of jsch and not com.jcraft. This was fixed later by Carlos Sanchez.
> Users of libraries who need Maven uploads should contact the library
> provider and make them create their own POMs.
> ;-)  So I have to contact jcraft concerning POMs, I did not do it until now.

Naughty.

> Realistically, your release manager will not want to make a 1.0.1
> release because of the wrong POM.
> But projects which provide their own POMs should consider the POMs as
> part of their sources.

Better have a test process for it, then. Something to audit the md and 
verify that all the artifacts are available.

> 
> This means that if people have issues with the Ant POMs after 1.7.0 is
> out, IMHO they should create bug reports in bugzilla with a patch attached,
> and wait until the next release.

Well, you have added a comment saying 'talk to the ant team about these 
poms' to each one, though I'd be happier if the poms were driven off 
lib/libraries.properties, as I've stated before. The risk now is that 
those poms will age badly, with new releases of ant having poms out of 
sync with the source. That is, unless you can get continuum or to build 
ant from source using them.

As I stated earlier on in this discussion: every artifact's metadata 
ought to inclue information about the origin of the metadata, rather 
than just the artifact. Both groups could leave space for dublin-core 
author metadata about both, just with something in the schema, elements 
<artifactinfo> and <metadatainfo> of type xsd:any xmlns="##other".

-Steve

-steve

Re: Who owns the metadata

[Antoine Levy-Lambert <an...@gmx.de>]

Bonjour Steve,

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:01:20 +0000
Von: Steve Loughran <st...@apache.org>
An: ivy-dev@incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Who owns the metadata

> Well, you have added a comment saying 'talk to the ant team about these 
> poms' to each one, though I'd be happier if the poms were driven off 
> lib/libraries.properties, as I've stated before. The risk now is that 
> those poms will age badly, with new releases of ant having poms out of 
> sync with the source. That is, unless you can get continuum or to build 
> ant from source using them.
> 

this is a valid point. I will do something like
<property file="library.properties"/>
then use these properties when generating the release (with the filter <replaceproperties/>
There is already one property in the POMs which gets replaced in the build.

Regards,
Antoine