Re: Migration to Maven
От | Stephen Nelson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Migration to Maven |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHpHs3myQjA0r14rsBo2xsoVKHwngTyHLtHq7Z6QTRHCt59T7g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Migration to Maven (Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Migration to Maven
|
Список | pgsql-jdbc |
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Vladimir Sitnikov <sitnikov.vladimir@gmail.com> wrote: > The main problem with release is maven does not allow multiple deploys > to the same groupId:artifactId:version. > > In other words: > 1) build via jdk8, deploy -> ok, pom.xml, jdbc42.jar in maven > 2) build via jdk7, deploy -> fail: "the same pom.xml already exists". I'm not glad it happened, but glad that you experienced the same issue as me! I think the Ant build was hiding the fact we do have three different artifacts but managed to combine them into the same co-ordinates in Maven Central. > Frankly speaking I see absolutely no problems with having different > artifactIds for different jdbc versions provided github readme gives > <dependency> snippets for jdk6, 7, and 8. Agreed. My preference is option C if it is not too onerous, followed by option A. Option C would appear the cleaner approach, but has the downside or creating additional workload on a small team. Can we quantify how difficult would it be to backport fixes? If the structure of the projects is exactly the same it should be possible to cherry-pick the commits. If we keep to a standard of using JDK6-compatible code where possible the branches shouldn't drift too far from each other. The other benefit is that the pom.xml will be simpler without all the build profiles and multi-module build. If not option A seems sensible and will allow us to publish complete sources, javadoc and the artifact that all correspond to the spec version.
В списке pgsql-jdbc по дате отправления: