No problem Lukas. It can be done in next version.
Emmanuel
Lukas Theussl a écrit :
You are right, it's not currently used and I totally agree that it
should be. However, I am just now preparing a new release which I expect
to be ready next week (when MPCHANGELOG-81 is resolved), and I don't
want to hold that back now.
-Lukas
Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
Do you use maven-scm in changelog plugin? I guess it isn't (same thing
for m2 changelog plugin)
I think it will be a good idea to use it for scm url parsing and
changelog command, so this plugin will do only the page result
generation from changelog output and will can obtain bug fixes from
maven-scm, support of all scm tools, and code won't be redundant.
Emmanuel
Dennis Lundberg a écrit :
Hi
I've been working with Lukas on the Maven 1 plugins team to resolve
an issue in maven-changelog-plugin for Maven 1. He posed a valid
question in that discussion, which led me to write this message.
SCM-106 makes it possible to use "|" as a separator character between
"scm" and the rest of the scm url. That way you can have *only* ":"
or *only* "|" as your separator.
However it is also possible to use an scm url like the one below, and
it is considered valid in maven-scm-beta-3-SNAPSHOT:
scm:cvs|pserver|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|/home/cvspublic|module
Lukas asked me this:
"Shouldn't the separator be set to the character after the 'scm'?"
My first thought was: of course it should. But when I looked at the
code for maven-scm and found that this is not the case. So as I see
it we have two alternatives here, regarding what url:s are valid:
1. The way it works now
scm:<provider>:<provider specific stuff>
scm:<provider>|<provider specific stuff>
scm|<provider>|<provider specific stuff>
2. More consistent way of handling the separator
scm:<provider>:<provider specific stuff>
scm|<provider>|<provider specific stuff>
The upside of using 2. is that it makes parsing of scm url:s much
easier.
The downside of going with 2 is that there might be a few scm url:s
out there using the "scm:<provider>|<provider specific stuff>"
format, which would no longer work.
Thoughts anyone?
