I will play with your repo in a dedicated branch : http://svn.warpspeed.com.au/test-repos/FireDragon/branches/olamy-test/
-- Olivier 2008/8/25 ChrisGWarp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Olivier Lamy wrote: >> >> Hi, >> For me it's not a SCM issue !. >> Don't use flat structure and it will works like a charm ! >> >> Move all files which are in >> http://svn.warpspeed.com.au/test-repos/FireDragon/trunk/FireDragon/ to >> http://svn.warpspeed.com.au/test-repos/FireDragon/trunk/ (and change >> all modules paths like <module>FireDragonResources</module> ) >> > > Ie, make it a nested, non flat structure. > > I find statements such as these both niave and arrogant and all together > unhelpful. > > For it presumes a few things. > > 1. That the existing structure can indeed be changed. In some cases it may > be able to be changed, in others it certainly will not. > 2. Subclipse will not cope with this structure (having projects overlap) > 3. It does not fix the issue (which is a real one), it simply ignores it. > > Looking at the dates from the Subversion issue (2007) it has been around for > a while.Their point of view is that it is a maven bug in that it is maven > that fails to deal with a known issue. I can see their point. > > The fact of the matter is that Maven supports non nested directory > structures, and so should the plugins. > > The SCM/subversion modules must be able to cater for this situation, it is > not an uncommon one.Whilst it may be a hack to commit each project > separately, it (to me at least, and from what I can read others as well) an > acceptable workaround. > > Perhaps there should be an option to use SVNKit, as that does handle this > situation. > > -Chris > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--Release-Maven-Scm-1.1-%28take-3%29-tp19123852p19138633.html > Sent from the Maven - SCM mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
