Re: Donation of Maven plugins to the Maven Project.

>
> On 09/05/2008, at 3:06 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> How does this differ from the remote-resources plugin? Could it be
>>>> combined with that?
>>>
>>> Remote resources plugin simply bundles resources together as a  
>>> different
>>> artifact to allow other builds to depend on the same set of  
>>> resources.
>>>
>>
>> It's grabs the transitive set of projects and takes the  
>> organization name out. Adding something like:
>>
>> handleProject( MavenProject ) { do whatever you like; }
>>
>> To generalize it would be nice instead of duplicating the logic in  
>> another plugin.
>
> +1
>
>>>
>>>> I would suggest as a starting point you can put them in the Maven
>>>> sandbox (or branch the remote resources plugin there and  
>>>> incorporate),
>>>> if there is support for it here, since all Apache committers have
>>>> access there.
>>>
>>> Awesome, Ill prepare and put both of these plugins into sandbox now.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, hold on there. 1) Since when did accepting new bodies of code  
>> be decided between two people.
>
> It shouldn't be, and IMO this discussion should continue and get  
> some more opinions (as I said "if there is support here"). After  
> that, the sandbox is the best starting point and if anything goes in  
> that is more than James' own work, then the IP clearance papers  
> should of course be filled in too.
>
> But one standard for everyone, please. You checked in a more  
> significant contribution without discussion *at all* just a few days  
> ago (http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=653572).

>
>
>
>> For one I disagree it's appropriate to even bring them here, and 2)  
>> new bodies of code need to go through the incubator which is why I  
>> suggested Mojo which gives the default search behavior (which is a  
>> good thing) and generally less cumbersome.
>
> I think combining of the license functionality with the remote  
> resources plugin (or basing them both on a common ground) is worth  
> having here. Good support for tracking and recording licenses is  
> something I value as a part of this project.
>
> As for the wagon plugin... if it is closely related to the wagon  
> releases and adds value I think it's of value in Wagon, especially  
> if it can actually incorporate the couple of other ones floating  
> around already. If it's just going to be more for us to maintain  
> without value then it's better off somewhere else. I trust James to  
> make the call on which to attempt, fully aware of the work that's  
> involved in doing so. The sandbox is open to all Apache committers  
> to play around with, obviously then doing the work to get it into a  
> release is another matter.
>
> - Brett
>
> --
> Brett Porter
> brett@...
> http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@...
>