archiva-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "nicolas de loof" <nicolas.del...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Creation of a tag for a stable 'just works' Archiva version
Date Wed, 28 Feb 2007 07:54:54 GMT
3) allready work AFAIK (I'm cannot test it as I'm not at job this week).

As you note, this is not exactly about identifying maven client version, but
maven1 will always use legacy and in many case maven2 will use default.
As maven2 will ask for the pom prior to the artifact jar, it should never
ask for a jar that has been relocated.


2007/2/27, Brett Porter <brett@apache.org>:
>
> I thought (3) already worked.
>
> I didn't think this was about identifying the client, but correctly
> serving a legacy layout request off either type of repo (whether its
> m1 or m2 with legacy layout).
>
> - Brett
>
> On 27/02/2007, at 2:37 AM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
>
> > Out of curiosity, what's important ...
> >
> > 1) Archiva serving up maven 1 (legacy) layout repositories.
> > (easy / done)
> > 2) Archiva conversion of maven 1 repository to maven 2 repository.
> > (easy / done)
> > 3) Archiva being able to proxy maven 2 content for maven 1 clients.
> > (moderate / needs work)
> > 4) Archiva being able to serve relocated artifacts to maven 1 clients
> > transparently. (moderate / needs work)
> > 5) Archiva gui having ability to artifact relocations. (moderate /
> > needs
> > work)
> >
> > Archiva does not know who is connecting to it.
> > It could be a maven 1 client, it could be a maven 2 client, it
> > could be
> > a user.
> >
> > If we assume that legacy layout repositories are only served to
> > maven 1
> > clients, then we can handle points 3 and 4 above.  But if a maven 2
> > client uses the legacy repository, then points 3 and 4 could mask
> > and/or
> > hide the relocation warnings on the client side.  Is that behavior
> > acceptable?
> >
> > - Joakim
> >
> > nicolas de loof wrote:
> >> Could you consider my patch to MRM-153 : archiva beeing maven1
> >> compliant is
> >> required for me as lot's of my project still use maven1 to build.
> >>
> >> 2007/2/26, Joakim Erdfelt <joakim@erdfelt.com>:
> >>>
> >>> We are working towards a stable archiva version (alpha) this week.
> >>> Stay tuned for the tag or release.
> >>>
> >>> - Joakim Erdfelt
> >>>
> >>> Tomek Korzeniewski wrote:
> >>>> Greetings to the Archiva Team!
> >>>>
> >>>> Would it be possible to create a tag in the svn repo of a stable,
> >>> 'builds /
> >>>> works without problem after checkout', version of Archiva? I've
> >>>> been
> >>> looking
> >>>> at the dev forum lately and notice that there are a lot of changes
> >>> being
> >>>> proposed and ones merged from the archiva MRM-239 branch.
> >>>>
> >>>> After reading the many different wiki entries and posts regarding
> >>> getting
> >>>> archiva up and running, and the issues users have been having
> >>> regarding
> >>>> changes made to the trunk I am weary about checking out what is
> >>> available at
> >>>> the moment.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you already have something of the sort in the pipeline could you
> >>> please
> >>>> post your plans.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks in advance.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message