From: Andrea A. <and...@ge...> - 2011-04-21 09:00:28
|
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Jody Garnett <jod...@gm...> wrote: > I will try and answer a few of these .. that way i can be corrected if I am > wrong :-) > > Sounds like you have though it trough in detail, good :-) > This is the kind of change that requires a formal proposal + vote I think. > > Yep; question is do we update Howard's proposal or replace it? And can the > upgrade to maven 3 be treated > as a separate proposal. I don't have a preference proposal wise. I agree upgrading to maven 3 should be done separately (before the osgi thing if it's a prerequisite) > - can you do all the work by yourself, or do you need specific help from > the developers? > - what kind of extra work does keeping OSGI bundles around require on > maintainers? > > My impression was the maven plugins would use the mave dependency > information and generate the MANIFEST.MF entries? If that is case the extra > work is making sure the pom.xml is correct. Then it's no extra work :) > What extra bits are required out of people contributing new modules? > As a developer that does not use OSGI how to I make sure I'm not breaking > OSGI support unadvertedly? > > We may be able to have a test dependency on an osgi container of some sort > and do a brief sanity check? Possibly > as an extensive test for the build server to run? Maybe? Keeping some automated tests in the build (eventually, as you say, as extensive ones if the test is very long) sounds like a good approach, if feasible. Cheers Andrea -- ------------------------------------------------------- Ing. Andrea Aime GeoSolutions S.A.S. Tech lead Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 55054 Massarosa (LU) Italy phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 962313 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/ http://www.youtube.com/user/GeoSolutionsIT http://www.linkedin.com/in/andreaaime http://twitter.com/geowolf ------------------------------------------------------- |