ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <>
Subject Re: Evaluating Bintray as a distribution platform for easyant plugins
Date Sat, 11 May 2013 19:38:35 GMT
Many many thanks for taking the time to explain it in so much detail,

I now understand that plugins, buildtypes and skeletons are not well
suited to be distributed in a Maven formatted, POM enforcing environment
like Maven Central

No objections from me again using bintray, you've convinced me that
Macen Central would be a bad fit and something else is needed.

On 2013-05-09, Jean-Louis Boudart wrote:

> We may have in future plugins that couldn't be hosted as ASF as they may
> have incompatible licenses. It's for example the case for chekstyle/sonar
> plugins.
> It would be easier if have *one entry point* for users. That's why we
> created

Understood.  And I don't see any reason why bintray would be worse a
choice than a self-hosted website.

> Then we could isolate apache plugins from external ones by having two
> internal repositories :

>    -

>    -

First of all, we'd still distribute all Apache releases via, but there isn't any reason why they couldn't be
distributed via different channels as well - just like Maven Central is
a different channel or CPAN or gem servers are.

I'm not quite sure why you'd want to have the separate internal
repositories.  Is this so people can stick to Apache compatible stuff
only if they really want to - to spare them the time to read the license

If the distribution point you are talking about is outside of the ASF
there is nobody forcing you to separate stuff, of course you can do so.

Thanks again


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message