[VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

jochen-2

Hi,

as already discussed on

     http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=116012265800001


I would like to see a release of the parent POM for the Jakarta Commons
Proper projects. The current version 1-SNAPSHOT can be found on


http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/commons/proper/commons-parent/trunk/

Note, in particular, that the artifactId has changed to commons-proper!

When voting, please consider that

* this is the first release; in other words, it currently blocks any
   depending project
* it is a POM; in other words, changing it later is relatively easy

Jochen


[ ] +1
[ ] =0
[ ] -1


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

Stephen Colebourne
Can you summarise in a paragraph why we need a publicly published POM
for those of us maven luddites who haven't followed the discussion, so
we know what is being voted on and why?
thanks
Stephen

Jochen Wiedmann wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> as already discussed on
>
>     http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=116012265800001
>
>
> I would like to see a release of the parent POM for the Jakarta Commons
> Proper projects. The current version 1-SNAPSHOT can be found on
>
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/commons/proper/commons-parent/trunk/ 
>
>
> Note, in particular, that the artifactId has changed to commons-proper!
>
> When voting, please consider that
>
> * this is the first release; in other words, it currently blocks any
>   depending project
> * it is a POM; in other words, changing it later is relatively easy
>
> Jochen
>
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] =0
> [ ] -1
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

jochen-2
On 10/12/06, Stephen Colebourne <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Can you summarise in a paragraph why we need a publicly published POM
> for those of us maven luddites who haven't followed the discussion, so
> we know what is being voted on and why?

Think of the POM as a project configuration, it's a single file. Maven
2 supports the concept of a POM hierarchy: There is an (officially
released) Apache POM (see
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/apache/ ), which configures
the things that are common for all Apache projects (license,
organization, for example). There might be a Jakarta specific POM,
which extends the Apache POM, a Commons proper POM and finally the
project specific POM, for example commons-fileupload.

Currently there is only a SNAPSHOT POM for commons proper: In other
words, a release of commons-fileupload can only choose to ignore the
hierarchy and derive from the Apache POM directly or it can wait for
an official release of the commons-proper POM, it's natural parent.
The latter is what we vote about.

Does that help?


Jochen

--
My wife Mary and I have been married for forty-seven years and not
once have we had an argument serious enough to consider divorce;
murder, yes, but divorce, never.
(Jack Benny)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

Dennis Lundberg-2
In reply to this post by jochen-2
I'd like to remove the <issueManagement> section. It does not provide
anything useful to the project that inherits from the parent pom. The
project still has to define this for itself.

Other than that I'm +1

--
Dennis Lundberg

Jochen Wiedmann wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> as already discussed on
>
>     http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=116012265800001
>
>
> I would like to see a release of the parent POM for the Jakarta Commons
> Proper projects. The current version 1-SNAPSHOT can be found on
>
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/commons/proper/commons-parent/trunk/ 
>
>
> Note, in particular, that the artifactId has changed to commons-proper!
>
> When voting, please consider that
>
> * this is the first release; in other words, it currently blocks any
>   depending project
> * it is a POM; in other words, changing it later is relatively easy
>
> Jochen
>
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] =0
> [ ] -1
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

jochen-2
On 10/12/06, Dennis Lundberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'd like to remove the <issueManagement> section. It does not provide
> anything useful to the project that inherits from the parent pom. The
> project still has to define this for itself.
>
> Other than that I'm +1

I agree with you, but for in order to keep the vote going, I'd prefer
to do the change in 2-SNAPSHOT.

Jochen


--
My wife Mary and I have been married for forty-seven years and not
once have we had an argument serious enough to consider divorce;
murder, yes, but divorce, never.
(Jack Benny)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

Jörg Schaible-2
In reply to this post by jochen-2

Hi Jochen,

can you (or anyone else) tell my, why there's a configuration for the IDEA plugin included, especially setting JDK to 1.3? Some commons are no longer JDK 1.3 specific ...

- Jörg



Jochen Wiedmann wrote on Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:59 PM:

> Hi,
>
> as already discussed on
>
>      http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=116012265800001
>
>
> I would like to see a release of the parent POM for the
> Jakarta Commons
> Proper projects. The current version 1-SNAPSHOT can be found on
>
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/commons/proper/commons
> -parent/trunk/
>
> Note, in particular, that the artifactId has changed to
> commons-proper!
>
> When voting, please consider that
>
> * this is the first release; in other words, it currently blocks any
> depending project
> * it is a POM; in other words, changing it later is relatively easy
>
> Jochen
>
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] =0
> [ ] -1
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

jochen-2
On 10/16/06, Jörg Schaible <[hidden email]> wrote:

> can you (or anyone else) tell my, why there's a configuration for the IDEA plugin included, especially setting JDK to 1.3? Some commons are no longer JDK 1.3 specific ...

Basically, I have no problems with adding IDE specific stuff to the
POM. But that's my personal opinion and I am an Eclipse user.

Apart from that, the configuration is simply wrong: It should use
${maven.compile.source} and not the fixed value 1.3. I am open for
fixing it or removing it. However, I'd ask to do this in 2-SNAPSHOT.

Jochen


--
My wife Mary and I have been married for forty-seven years and not
once have we had an argument serious enough to consider divorce;
murder, yes, but divorce, never.
(Jack Benny)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

Dion Gillard-2
In reply to this post by jochen-2
I'm -1 on it as it stands, as I have a few problems with the proposed POM:

- remove [hidden email] as the continuum email address and make it
[hidden email]
- why do we need a dummy repository?
- what value does the scm section provide to inheriters?
- When building distributions the notice.txt is placed in the top
level of the generated archive - is it possible to get this in there
somehow too?
- Is it possible to get the m2 bug fixed which forces us to use a
whole slew of ant xml to copy over various resources?

Any hope of getting these answered?

On 10/12/06, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> as already discussed on
>
>      http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=116012265800001
>
>
> I would like to see a release of the parent POM for the Jakarta Commons
> Proper projects. The current version 1-SNAPSHOT can be found on
>
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/commons/proper/commons-parent/trunk/
>
> Note, in particular, that the artifactId has changed to commons-proper!
>
> When voting, please consider that
>
> * this is the first release; in other words, it currently blocks any
>    depending project
> * it is a POM; in other words, changing it later is relatively easy
>
> Jochen
>
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] =0
> [ ] -1
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
Rule of Acquisition #91: Hear all, trust nothing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

Jörg Schaible-2
In reply to this post by jochen-2
Jochen Wiedmann wrote on Monday, October 16, 2006 12:25 PM:

> On 10/16/06, Jörg Schaible <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> can you (or anyone else) tell my, why there's a
> configuration for the IDEA plugin included, especially
> setting JDK to 1.3? Some commons are no longer JDK 1.3 specific ...
>
> Basically, I have no problems with adding IDE specific stuff to the
> POM. But that's my personal opinion and I am an Eclipse user.

it was not the IDEA plugin, that attracted my attention, just the JDK specificaion.
 
> Apart from that, the configuration is simply wrong: It should use
> ${maven.compile.source} and not the fixed value 1.3. I am open for
> fixing it or removing it. However, I'd ask to do this in 2-SNAPSHOT.

... and use that parameter also also for the javadoc plugin ;-)


- Jörg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

Jörg Schaible-2
In reply to this post by jochen-2
Hi Dion,

Dion Gillard wrote on Monday, October 16, 2006 1:40 PM:

> I'm -1 on it as it stands, as I have a few problems with the proposed
> POM:
>
> - remove [hidden email] as the continuum email address and make it
> [hidden email]
> - why do we need a dummy repository?
> - what value does the scm section provide to inheriters?

Good, that you asked for this, since the entries are wrong. Normally a submodule inherits the URL and the submodule's artifactId is appended. This does not apply here (ignoring the fact, that the artifactId will produce a wrong Subversion path anyway), since this POM has an own release cycle. Therefore it needs a SCM section, but for its own purpose i.e. the URLs have to point the trunk (otherwise the release plugin would fail to place the released version into the proper place in Subversion too).

> - When building distributions the notice.txt is placed in the top
> level of the generated archive - is it possible to get this in there
> somehow too? - Is it possible to get the m2 bug fixed which forces us
> to use a whole slew of ant xml to copy over various resources?
>
> Any hope of getting these answered?

Therefore I am also -1

- Jörg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

jochen-2
In reply to this post by Dion Gillard-2
On 10/16/06, Dion Gillard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I'm -1 on it as it stands, as I have a few problems with the proposed POM:

Ok, you have just convinced me that it is better to make the next
release of commons-fileupload without waiting for the availability of
the commons-parent POM. :-(

I haven't got any objections against you arguments, but it's nasty
asking several times whether "we are ready" and now getting blocking
votes again.


> - remove [hidden email] as the continuum email address and make it
> [hidden email]

Done.


> - why do we need a dummy repository?

The comment says it: It should prevent accidental deploys to the
Apache repositories, which are configured in the parent POM (the
Apache root POM). The idea is that I have to use the -Prc or -Prelease
command line switches for deploying. It wasn't my idea, but I like it.


> - what value does the scm section provide to inheriters?

None, you are right. I have removed it. But the same holds true for
the issueManagement section. Removed as well.


> - When building distributions the notice.txt is placed in the top
> level of the generated archive - is it possible to get this in there
> somehow too?

You are referring to the distribution archives, not to the jar files,
are you? They are generated by the assembly plugin and I am unaware of
any possibility to configure that from a parent POM.


> - Is it possible to get the m2 bug fixed which forces us to use a
> whole slew of ant xml to copy over various resources?
>
> Any hope of getting these answered?

1.) It isn't clear that the point is even considered a bug. Copying
the whole "source
    directory" (which is the base directory) may be considered a
feature by some.
2.) We need to get the fix into the source plugins SVN version. From
my experience,
    that can easily take some months.
3.) We need to have a released version of the source plugin containing
the fix. That will
    easily take some months more.

In other words, I don't believe it's reasonable. Besides, I can't see
what problems you have with the current solution. It does exactly what
it's supposed to: Makes sure that the LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt files
are part of the generated jar files.


Jochen

--
My wife Mary and I have been married for forty-seven years and not
once have we had an argument serious enough to consider divorce;
murder, yes, but divorce, never.
(Jack Benny)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

jochen-2
In reply to this post by Jörg Schaible-2
On 10/16/06, Jörg Schaible <[hidden email]> wrote:

> it was not the IDEA plugin, that attracted my attention, just the JDK specificaion.

Ok, changed, as I gave up hoping for a successful release.

> ... and use that parameter also also for the javadoc plugin ;-)

Done.

Jochen

--
My wife Mary and I have been married for forty-seven years and not
once have we had an argument serious enough to consider divorce;
murder, yes, but divorce, never.
(Jack Benny)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

Jörg Schaible-2
In reply to this post by jochen-2
Jochen Wiedmann wrote on Monday, October 16, 2006 2:39 PM:

[snip]

>> - what value does the scm section provide to inheriters?
>
> None, you are right. I have removed it. But the same holds true for
> the issueManagement section. Removed as well.

You need it for the POM itself to be reeleased! It has an own release cycle!

[snip]

- Jörg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

Dion Gillard-2
In reply to this post by jochen-2
On 10/16/06, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/16/06, Dion Gillard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I'm -1 on it as it stands, as I have a few problems with the proposed POM:
>
> Ok, you have just convinced me that it is better to make the next
> release of commons-fileupload without waiting for the availability of
> the commons-parent POM. :-(
>
> I haven't got any objections against you arguments, but it's nasty
> asking several times whether "we are ready" and now getting blocking
> votes again.

I'm sorry I missed the previous votes, but I can easily change my vote
once I understand the issues better.

>
> > - remove [hidden email] as the continuum email address and make it
> > [hidden email]
>
> Done.
>
>
> > - why do we need a dummy repository?
>
> The comment says it: It should prevent accidental deploys to the
> Apache repositories, which are configured in the parent POM (the
> Apache root POM). The idea is that I have to use the -Prc or -Prelease
> command line switches for deploying. It wasn't my idea, but I like it.

Ok, that makes sense. An updated comment about what switches are
needed from the command like to override it would work for me.

>
> > - what value does the scm section provide to inheriters?
>
> None, you are right. I have removed it. But the same holds true for
> the issueManagement section. Removed as well.
>
>
> > - When building distributions the notice.txt is placed in the top
> > level of the generated archive - is it possible to get this in there
> > somehow too?
>
> You are referring to the distribution archives, not to the jar files,
> are you? They are generated by the assembly plugin and I am unaware of
> any possibility to configure that from a parent POM.

Me either, hence the question. If it's not possible, fair enough.

>
>
> > - Is it possible to get the m2 bug fixed which forces us to use a
> > whole slew of ant xml to copy over various resources?
> >
> > Any hope of getting these answered?
>
> 1.) It isn't clear that the point is even considered a bug. Copying
> the whole "source
>     directory" (which is the base directory) may be considered a
> feature by some.
> 2.) We need to get the fix into the source plugins SVN version. From
> my experience,
>     that can easily take some months.
> 3.) We need to have a released version of the source plugin containing
> the fix. That will
>     easily take some months more.
>
> In other words, I don't believe it's reasonable. Besides, I can't see
> what problems you have with the current solution. It does exactly what
> it's supposed to: Makes sure that the LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt files
> are part of the generated jar files.

If it's not likely to be 'fixed' and soon, I'm happy with what we've
got. I would have preferred the cleaner solution, but it doesn't seem
feasible.


That makes my vote a +0 now you've clarified that for me.

>
> Jochen
>
> --
> My wife Mary and I have been married for forty-seven years and not
> once have we had an argument serious enough to consider divorce;
> murder, yes, but divorce, never.
> (Jack Benny)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
Rule of Acquisition #91: Hear all, trust nothing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

jochen-2
In reply to this post by Jörg Schaible-2
On 10/16/06, Jörg Schaible <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > None, you are right. I have removed it. But the same holds true for
> > the issueManagement section. Removed as well.
>
> You need it for the POM itself to be reeleased! It has an own release cycle!

Understood. I have reenabled the section again and added a comment for
losers like me.

Jochen


--
My wife Mary and I have been married for forty-seven years and not
once have we had an argument serious enough to consider divorce;
murder, yes, but divorce, never.
(Jack Benny)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

jochen-2
In reply to this post by Dion Gillard-2
On 10/16/06, Dion Gillard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ok, that makes sense. An updated comment about what switches are
> needed from the command like to override it would work for me.

I have added the hint on how to use the profiles.


> That makes my vote a +0 now you've clarified that for me.

Unfortunately we still do not even have a single +1 from PMC members. :-(
 (Besides, there's still Jörg's -1.)


Jochen


--
My wife Mary and I have been married for forty-seven years and not
once have we had an argument serious enough to consider divorce;
murder, yes, but divorce, never.
(Jack Benny)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

Dion Gillard-2
On 10/17/06, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/16/06, Dion Gillard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Ok, that makes sense. An updated comment about what switches are
> > needed from the command like to override it would work for me.
>
> I have added the hint on how to use the profiles.
>
>
> > That makes my vote a +0 now you've clarified that for me.
>
> Unfortunately we still do not even have a single +1 from PMC members. :-(
>  (Besides, there's still Jörg's -1.)

I'm happy to go +1. I'm not that m2 savvy, but I would like to see
this parent pom in place, and soon, as other projects like vfs are
thinking of moving to m2.

>
> Jochen
>
>
> --
> My wife Mary and I have been married for forty-seven years and not
> once have we had an argument serious enough to consider divorce;
> murder, yes, but divorce, never.
> (Jack Benny)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>


--
http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
Rule of Acquisition #91: Hear all, trust nothing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

Rahul Akolkar
In reply to this post by jochen-2
On 10/16/06, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 10/16/06, Dion Gillard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I'm -1 on it as it stands, as I have a few problems with the proposed POM:
>
> Ok, you have just convinced me that it is better to make the next
> release of commons-fileupload without waiting for the availability of
> the commons-parent POM. :-(
>
> I haven't got any objections against you arguments, but it's nasty
> asking several times whether "we are ready" and now getting blocking
> votes again.
>
<snip/>

No, its not.

I believe many of us try to follow developments when feedback is
requested, but its not feasible every time. We want as many
participants as are interested to look at things and get involved, and
do so whenever their schedule allows for it. Its likely that some may
not get a chance before the vote is called. I would tend to agree with
you, if numerous votes had been called on this topic already.

Procedurally, this vote thread has lost its clarity. Some have voted,
changes have been made to the release artifact thereafter, and others
have voted on the changed artifact. Suggest you close this vote and
start another vote with a slightly different subject (so we can easily
distinguish the two threads). Personally, within the initial email in
the vote thread, I'd be glad to see:
a) svn revision number at which the POM is to be released
b) closing date and time of vote

Thanks for your time spent on this.
-Rahul

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

Jörg Schaible
In reply to this post by jochen-2
Hi Jochen,

Jochen Wiedmann wrote:

> On 10/16/06, Jörg Schaible <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> > None, you are right. I have removed it. But the same holds true for
>> > the issueManagement section. Removed as well.
>>
>> You need it for the POM itself to be reeleased! It has an own release
>> cycle!
>
> Understood. I have reenabled the section again and added a comment for
> losers like me.

there's no point in feeling bad about POM entries. It took myself some time
to find my way with M2 and if you have a look into Maven's JIRA (and the
plugins) how many (still open) issues I have filed, I am asking sometimes
myself, why I go through all the hassle ;-)

- Jörg

BTW: You get my +1 if you put the SCM URLs right ... append
a "/commons-parent/trunk" everywhere .. hehehe


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [VOTE] Release commons-proper POM 1

Rahul Akolkar
In reply to this post by jochen-2
Why is this (see email subject) called commons-proper POM?

One related comment inlined below --

On 10/12/06, Jochen Wiedmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> as already discussed on
>
>      http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=116012265800001
>
>
> I would like to see a release of the parent POM for the Jakarta Commons
> Proper projects. The current version 1-SNAPSHOT can be found on
>
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/commons/proper/commons-parent/trunk/
>
> Note, in particular, that the artifactId has changed to commons-proper!
>
<snip/>

Is this a typo? The artifactId is commons-parent.

-Rahul


> When voting, please consider that
>
> * this is the first release; in other words, it currently blocks any
>    depending project
> * it is a POM; in other words, changing it later is relatively easy
>
> Jochen
>
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] =0
> [ ] -1
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

12