Yes!!

I'm not banned!!  (Whoooosh .... for a sec there I
thought maybe someone just could not take it anymore)

OK - Here's another reply that I sent to Emmanuel:

--- Emmanuel Lecharny  wrote:

> On 11/22/06, Ole Ersoy  wrote: 
> fix. 
> that 
>
>
> ohhhh yes !
>
> So if something gets updated on the Maven project, 
>
>
> like if Maven was a bad virus 



:-)




>
>
> Actually we don't care if something gets updated, 
> we 
>
>




I mean in the public Maven repositories...we only care
to update our repository when we need something
fixed....





> We should care a *lot* : this is what configuration
> management is all about
> ! We want to guarantee that the version x.y.z that
> use the plugin version
> A;B;C will still use this plugin version in 2 years.
>
> Then we pull the update and place it in 
>
>
>
> YESSSSS !
>
> Host it (Alex? Da Haus?)
>
>
> The best solution would be to  have a local file
> system based repo (but
> maven does not support it).



We'll all have the same local file system based repo,
based on our common hosted repo...So we point Maven to
our repo, and maven creates the local repo on each of
our machines, that is just mirroring our common repo.

So this is what ApacheDS Maven installation would be
configured to do.

Or we just provide a little tutorial that says set
maven up like this so that you are using our "Quality
Controlled" Repo....





Otherwize, I have a
> server on which we can put
> the repo, and das haus could be another one, and
> people.apache.org is
> another solution




Cool....people.apache.org is probably the best one...




>
> I guess I could host it as well as a backup....I'm 
> that 
>
>
> Not sure to get what yyou mean.



We need to point Maven at our common repository
only....So that our local repository stays "Clean" Man







>
> And provide an additional configuration tutorial in 
>
>
> "they" = who ?



Future committers that want to committ...







--- Ole Ersoy <ole_ersoy-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> OK - I'm going to give this another shot (This was
> in
> response to David's message):
>
> Yes - I think version management would be
> cool...there's just one concern we have with that...
>
> What if somebody changes a library or plugin without
> changing the version, and it breaks our build...
>
> I'm sure this is a low occurence thing...but ...
> (This
> may not be a real concern unless Maven downloads by
> something other than a updated version, like a time
> stamp)
>
> We also talked about having some sort of checksum
> check for this...which would be really ideal...
>
> I think it's desirable to do a quality check on any
> update, before the update actually gets done
> automatically...
>
> So we update one machine...make sure the update is
> cool...update our repository...and all our machines
> get updated...
>
> That way we don't get any "Suprises"
>
> We definitely should be locking down our versions
> like
> you are saying though.
>
> Cheers,
> - Ole
>
>
>
>
 ________________________________________
 ________________________________________
____
> Want to start your own business?
> Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
>




 ________________________________________
____________________________________
________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]