You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@maven.apache.org by Dion Gillard <di...@gmail.com> on 2004/07/12 15:23:49 UTC
Re: maven test release
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:13:30 +1000, Brett Porter <br...@apache.org> wrote:
> Absolutely. You're welcome to try and convince me/the list otherwise on it... I
> just feel that its not a must-have feature for 1.0. We're getting patches almost
> daily now, and we'd never cut a release if all of them were applied first. Just
> drawing a line in the sand :)
>
> > > Sound reasonable? Let me know how testing goes.
The reasons I think for including source jars in Maven 1.0
1) Projects whose license require distribution of the source can do so
via the same means as the binary.
2) Jars created by Maven can be 'IDE Debug Friendly'. This allows
users to step through code in the jars during debugging sessions with
no extra download and little extra configuration.
3) Its a simple change, with test cases
and
4) It's been requested before, e.g.
a) http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=users@maven.apache.org&msgId=808912
b)
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=users@maven.apache.org&msgId=809540
That's my 2c. Does anyone else feel that it's a must have feature for 1.0?
--
http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: maven test release
Posted by Dion Gillard <di...@gmail.com>.
It's currently in v1.6.1-SNAPSHOT of the jar plugin. Which could be
built from CVS.
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:22:03 +0200, Jerome Lacoste
<je...@coffeebreaks.org> wrote:
>
> > The reasons I think for including source jars in Maven 1.0
> [...]
> > That's my 2c. Does anyone else feel that it's a must have feature for 1.0?
>
> As a user, I would also like to have the code.
>
> If it isn't possible to do that for 1.0, maybe there is a way to
> automatically download/install them using a specific goal?
>
> Jerome
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: maven test release
Posted by Jerome Lacoste <je...@coffeebreaks.org>.
> The reasons I think for including source jars in Maven 1.0
[...]
> That's my 2c. Does anyone else feel that it's a must have feature for 1.0?
As a user, I would also like to have the code.
If it isn't possible to do that for 1.0, maybe there is a way to
automatically download/install them using a specific goal?
Jerome
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: maven test release
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>.
Yeah, sorry I missed the issue altogether here. I agree with the
general consensus on the thread that this is a bad thing.
I thought MPJAR-32 was to create source JAR as well. Serves me right
for not really reading the issue - at the time I was more passionate
about keeping (controversial) new features out of Maven 1.0 given I
want to release it yesterday :)
Sorry that the effort was wasted dIon.
Cheers,
Brett
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:38:33 +1000, Dion Gillard <di...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've rolled the code back out.
>
> If any users request this functionality in the future, I'll host the
> code elsewhere.
>
> In the meantime someone else can do the work to create a source archive.
>
>
>
> On 12 Jul 2004 11:36:40 -0400, Jason van Zyl <jv...@maven.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 11:10, Dion Gillard wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not sure I see the issue. If you are suggesting it should be
> > > another 'artifact JAR', I can see how that would be good, with a
> > > standard naming convention. But I'm not sure why having a 'mix bag' is
> > > an issue.
> >
> > Joe user downloads one JAR and finds it works somehow for stepping
> > through the source and then Joe user downloads another JAR and find this
> > doesn't work which will illicit all sorts of questions about why this
> > works in some cases and doesn't in others. Multiplicity with respect to
> > this, as it is with all things attempted in Maven, is not a good thing.
> >
> > > > For releases, I think it would be cool to have the source jar made as
> > > > well as part of the standard process. For snapshots I don't know if this
> > > > is really worth it.
> > >
> > > Do you meant the one produced by the dist plugin?
> > >
> > > > How to make this easy for users? I think this falls in the domain of the
> > > > IDE. For example, I don't think it would take much for the Mevenide
> > > > folks to add a snippet of code to look for a source archive artifact and
> > > > pull it down if the user wishes. We should make the source drops
> > > > available but mixing sources with binaries I think is a big no no.
> > >
> > > I can easily roll it back out of the jar plugin if you like, but since
> > > Brett said 'commit away', I'm reluctant to do so.
> >
> > If putting the sources in the JAR is an option and that's there now then
> > I'm -1 on that becoming any sort of standard of distributing sources.
> >
> > > For each L/GPL jar that gets distributed, the license says the source
> > > must accompany the binaries.
> >
> > They don't have to be in the JAR, they have to be available.
> >
> > > I get the feeling ibiblio is illegally
> > > distributing jars like checkstyle because there is no source provided
> > > with the binaries, and Maven simply downloads the jar.
> >
> > The sources have to be available and we do not repackage anything and
> > make a new distribution for which we would have to provide the source.
> > But for most things like checkstyle the source is freely available:
> >
> > http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=29721
> >
> > > Having source in the jar alleviates the need to do this for those with
> > > that sort of license, similar to ensuring the license is in META-INF.
> >
> > The source is available, this is not a problem and if any project sees
> > it as a problem, as I noted when Dalibor Topic complained the last time,
> > we can remove their artifacts from ibiblio but I doubt any project would
> > want that.
> >
> > Or you could just change the deploy plugin to push the source archive up
> > there too and then IDEs or users can pull down what they like.
> >
> > > If the Maven team doesn't want this feature, I could simply release it
> > > elsewhere if there's a need.
> >
> > Source archive available for every artifact:
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Mixing in the sources with the standard JAR:
> >
> > -1
> >
> > --
> > jvz.
> >
> > Jason van Zyl
> > jason@maven.org
> > http://maven.apache.org
> >
> > 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: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: maven test release
Posted by Dion Gillard <di...@gmail.com>.
I've rolled the code back out.
If any users request this functionality in the future, I'll host the
code elsewhere.
In the meantime someone else can do the work to create a source archive.
On 12 Jul 2004 11:36:40 -0400, Jason van Zyl <jv...@maven.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 11:10, Dion Gillard wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure I see the issue. If you are suggesting it should be
> > another 'artifact JAR', I can see how that would be good, with a
> > standard naming convention. But I'm not sure why having a 'mix bag' is
> > an issue.
>
> Joe user downloads one JAR and finds it works somehow for stepping
> through the source and then Joe user downloads another JAR and find this
> doesn't work which will illicit all sorts of questions about why this
> works in some cases and doesn't in others. Multiplicity with respect to
> this, as it is with all things attempted in Maven, is not a good thing.
>
> > > For releases, I think it would be cool to have the source jar made as
> > > well as part of the standard process. For snapshots I don't know if this
> > > is really worth it.
> >
> > Do you meant the one produced by the dist plugin?
> >
> > > How to make this easy for users? I think this falls in the domain of the
> > > IDE. For example, I don't think it would take much for the Mevenide
> > > folks to add a snippet of code to look for a source archive artifact and
> > > pull it down if the user wishes. We should make the source drops
> > > available but mixing sources with binaries I think is a big no no.
> >
> > I can easily roll it back out of the jar plugin if you like, but since
> > Brett said 'commit away', I'm reluctant to do so.
>
> If putting the sources in the JAR is an option and that's there now then
> I'm -1 on that becoming any sort of standard of distributing sources.
>
> > For each L/GPL jar that gets distributed, the license says the source
> > must accompany the binaries.
>
> They don't have to be in the JAR, they have to be available.
>
> > I get the feeling ibiblio is illegally
> > distributing jars like checkstyle because there is no source provided
> > with the binaries, and Maven simply downloads the jar.
>
> The sources have to be available and we do not repackage anything and
> make a new distribution for which we would have to provide the source.
> But for most things like checkstyle the source is freely available:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=29721
>
> > Having source in the jar alleviates the need to do this for those with
> > that sort of license, similar to ensuring the license is in META-INF.
>
> The source is available, this is not a problem and if any project sees
> it as a problem, as I noted when Dalibor Topic complained the last time,
> we can remove their artifacts from ibiblio but I doubt any project would
> want that.
>
> Or you could just change the deploy plugin to push the source archive up
> there too and then IDEs or users can pull down what they like.
>
> > If the Maven team doesn't want this feature, I could simply release it
> > elsewhere if there's a need.
>
> Source archive available for every artifact:
>
> +1
>
> Mixing in the sources with the standard JAR:
>
> -1
>
> --
> jvz.
>
> Jason van Zyl
> jason@maven.org
> http://maven.apache.org
>
> 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: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
--
http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
RE: maven test release
Posted by Carlos Sanchez <ap...@carlos.cousas.net>.
Hi,
IMHO a sources are needed but I agree with jvz and see it more clear in a
separate artifact type.
Think that javadoc may be also needed and end up with all these in a binary
jar is not a good idea.
The folks at mevenide only have to add a check so if the source file is
present in the repository add it as source artifact. The same for a javadoc
artifact.
Regards
Carlos Sanchez
A Coruña, Spain
Oness Project
http://oness.sourceforge.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:jvanzyl@maven.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 5:37 PM
> To: Maven Users List
> Subject: Re: maven test release
>
> On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 11:10, Dion Gillard wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure I see the issue. If you are suggesting it should be
> > another 'artifact JAR', I can see how that would be good, with a
> > standard naming convention. But I'm not sure why having a
> 'mix bag' is
> > an issue.
>
> Joe user downloads one JAR and finds it works somehow for
> stepping through the source and then Joe user downloads
> another JAR and find this doesn't work which will illicit all
> sorts of questions about why this works in some cases and
> doesn't in others. Multiplicity with respect to this, as it
> is with all things attempted in Maven, is not a good thing.
>
> > > For releases, I think it would be cool to have the source
> jar made
> > > as well as part of the standard process. For snapshots I
> don't know
> > > if this is really worth it.
> >
> > Do you meant the one produced by the dist plugin?
> >
> > > How to make this easy for users? I think this falls in
> the domain of
> > > the IDE. For example, I don't think it would take much for the
> > > Mevenide folks to add a snippet of code to look for a
> source archive
> > > artifact and pull it down if the user wishes. We should make the
> > > source drops available but mixing sources with binaries I
> think is a big no no.
> >
> > I can easily roll it back out of the jar plugin if you
> like, but since
> > Brett said 'commit away', I'm reluctant to do so.
>
> If putting the sources in the JAR is an option and that's
> there now then I'm -1 on that becoming any sort of standard
> of distributing sources.
>
> > For each L/GPL jar that gets distributed, the license says
> the source
> > must accompany the binaries.
>
> They don't have to be in the JAR, they have to be available.
>
> > I get the feeling ibiblio is illegally distributing jars like
> > checkstyle because there is no source provided with the
> binaries, and
> > Maven simply downloads the jar.
>
> The sources have to be available and we do not repackage
> anything and make a new distribution for which we would have
> to provide the source.
> But for most things like checkstyle the source is freely available:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=29721
>
> > Having source in the jar alleviates the need to do this for
> those with
> > that sort of license, similar to ensuring the license is in
> META-INF.
>
> The source is available, this is not a problem and if any
> project sees it as a problem, as I noted when Dalibor Topic
> complained the last time, we can remove their artifacts from
> ibiblio but I doubt any project would want that.
>
> Or you could just change the deploy plugin to push the source
> archive up there too and then IDEs or users can pull down
> what they like.
>
> > If the Maven team doesn't want this feature, I could simply
> release it
> > elsewhere if there's a need.
>
> Source archive available for every artifact:
>
> +1
>
> Mixing in the sources with the standard JAR:
>
> -1
>
>
> --
> jvz.
>
> Jason van Zyl
> jason@maven.org
> http://maven.apache.org
>
> 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: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@maven.apache.org
Re: maven test release
Posted by David Jencks <da...@coredevelopers.net>.
>
FWIW
> Source archive available for every artifact:
>
> +1
+1
>
> Mixing in the sources with the standard JAR:
>
> -1
-100
david jencks
>
> --
> jvz.
>
> Jason van Zyl
> jason@maven.org
> http://maven.apache.org
>
> 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: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: maven test release
Posted by Jason van Zyl <jv...@maven.org>.
On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 11:10, Dion Gillard wrote:
> I'm not sure I see the issue. If you are suggesting it should be
> another 'artifact JAR', I can see how that would be good, with a
> standard naming convention. But I'm not sure why having a 'mix bag' is
> an issue.
Joe user downloads one JAR and finds it works somehow for stepping
through the source and then Joe user downloads another JAR and find this
doesn't work which will illicit all sorts of questions about why this
works in some cases and doesn't in others. Multiplicity with respect to
this, as it is with all things attempted in Maven, is not a good thing.
> > For releases, I think it would be cool to have the source jar made as
> > well as part of the standard process. For snapshots I don't know if this
> > is really worth it.
>
> Do you meant the one produced by the dist plugin?
>
> > How to make this easy for users? I think this falls in the domain of the
> > IDE. For example, I don't think it would take much for the Mevenide
> > folks to add a snippet of code to look for a source archive artifact and
> > pull it down if the user wishes. We should make the source drops
> > available but mixing sources with binaries I think is a big no no.
>
> I can easily roll it back out of the jar plugin if you like, but since
> Brett said 'commit away', I'm reluctant to do so.
If putting the sources in the JAR is an option and that's there now then
I'm -1 on that becoming any sort of standard of distributing sources.
> For each L/GPL jar that gets distributed, the license says the source
> must accompany the binaries.
They don't have to be in the JAR, they have to be available.
> I get the feeling ibiblio is illegally
> distributing jars like checkstyle because there is no source provided
> with the binaries, and Maven simply downloads the jar.
The sources have to be available and we do not repackage anything and
make a new distribution for which we would have to provide the source.
But for most things like checkstyle the source is freely available:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=29721
> Having source in the jar alleviates the need to do this for those with
> that sort of license, similar to ensuring the license is in META-INF.
The source is available, this is not a problem and if any project sees
it as a problem, as I noted when Dalibor Topic complained the last time,
we can remove their artifacts from ibiblio but I doubt any project would
want that.
Or you could just change the deploy plugin to push the source archive up
there too and then IDEs or users can pull down what they like.
> If the Maven team doesn't want this feature, I could simply release it
> elsewhere if there's a need.
Source archive available for every artifact:
+1
Mixing in the sources with the standard JAR:
-1
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@maven.org
http://maven.apache.org
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: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: maven test release
Posted by Michal Maczka <mm...@interia.pl>.
On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 17:10, Dion Gillard wrote:
>
> For each L/GPL jar that gets distributed, the license says the source
> must accompany the binaries. I get the feeling ibiblio is illegally
> distributing jars like checkstyle because there is no source provided
> with the binaries, and Maven simply downloads the jar.
AFAIK: LGPL/GPL requires much more - you must provide sources and all
other artifacts (e.g other jars which might not be in ibiblio) + build
scripts which are needed to compile given project. So bundling java
sources inside a jar buys you nothing. And I do agree with jason: we
need just another artifact type for distributing java sources.
Michal
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: maven test release
Posted by Dion Gillard <di...@gmail.com>.
On 12 Jul 2004 10:07:09 -0400, Jason van Zyl <jv...@maven.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 09:23, Dion Gillard wrote:
>
> > That's my 2c. Does anyone else feel that it's a must have feature for 1.0?
>
> Putting the sources in the main artifact JAR is not the way to go,
> especially if it's made optional. Then you'll end up with a mix bag of
> artifacts.
I'm not sure I see the issue. If you are suggesting it should be
another 'artifact JAR', I can see how that would be good, with a
standard naming convention. But I'm not sure why having a 'mix bag' is
an issue.
> For releases, I think it would be cool to have the source jar made as
> well as part of the standard process. For snapshots I don't know if this
> is really worth it.
Do you meant the one produced by the dist plugin?
> How to make this easy for users? I think this falls in the domain of the
> IDE. For example, I don't think it would take much for the Mevenide
> folks to add a snippet of code to look for a source archive artifact and
> pull it down if the user wishes. We should make the source drops
> available but mixing sources with binaries I think is a big no no.
I can easily roll it back out of the jar plugin if you like, but since
Brett said 'commit away', I'm reluctant to do so.
For each L/GPL jar that gets distributed, the license says the source
must accompany the binaries. I get the feeling ibiblio is illegally
distributing jars like checkstyle because there is no source provided
with the binaries, and Maven simply downloads the jar.
Having source in the jar alleviates the need to do this for those with
that sort of license, similar to ensuring the license is in META-INF.
If the Maven team doesn't want this feature, I could simply release it
elsewhere if there's a need.
--
http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org
Re: maven test release
Posted by Jason van Zyl <jv...@maven.org>.
On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 09:23, Dion Gillard wrote:
> That's my 2c. Does anyone else feel that it's a must have feature for 1.0?
Putting the sources in the main artifact JAR is not the way to go,
especially if it's made optional. Then you'll end up with a mix bag of
artifacts.
For releases, I think it would be cool to have the source jar made as
well as part of the standard process. For snapshots I don't know if this
is really worth it.
How to make this easy for users? I think this falls in the domain of the
IDE. For example, I don't think it would take much for the Mevenide
folks to add a snippet of code to look for a source archive artifact and
pull it down if the user wishes. We should make the source drops
available but mixing sources with binaries I think is a big no no.
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@maven.org
http://maven.apache.org
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: users-unsubscribe@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@maven.apache.org