Caja changes to migrate artifacts to central

This should make caja much easier to use by pushing the artifacts to central.

[Paul Lindner, 2011-01-03 13:42:11]

Check this out..  It makes it much easier to roll out maven releases.

[Jasvir, 2011-01-03 19:22:10]

Thanks for doing this Paul.

http://codereview.appspot.com/3750046/diff/1/build.xml
File build.xml (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/3750046/diff/1/build.xml#newcode37
build.xml:37: <project name="caja" default="default" basedir="."
xmlns:artifact="urn:maven-artifact-ant">
Wrap at 80 columns.

http://codereview.appspot.com/3750046/diff/1/build.xml#newcode1629
build.xml:1629: <get src="${maven.ant.tasks.bootstrap.location}"
dest="${maven.ant.tasks.jar}"/>
Can we put the maven utilities jar in third party instead of making network
requests as part of the build?

http://codereview.appspot.com/3750046/diff/1/build.xml#newcode1674
build.xml:1674: description="Signs and Deploys closure-compiler artifacts to the
central maven repo">
s/closure-compiler/caja/

http://codereview.appspot.com/3750046/diff/1/caja-template.pom
File caja-template.pom (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/3750046/diff/1/caja-template.pom#newcode19
caja-template.pom:19: <groupId>com.google.javascript</groupId>
I do not know the significance of groupId.  Unless there are predefined groups,
com.google.caja might be a better id here.

[Paul Lindner, 2011-01-04 04:03:31]

Patch updated with suggestions.

One can use any groupId -- I'd like to stick with com.google.javascript, which
is where closure-compiler lives.  But one could use com.google.caja instead if
you want to go through the hassle.

[Paul Lindner, 2011-01-10 22:06:32]

Consensus?

On 2011/01/04 04:03:31, Paul Lindner wrote:
> Patch updated with suggestions.
> 
> One can use any groupId -- I'd like to stick with com.google.javascript, which
> is where closure-compiler lives.  But one could use com.google.caja instead if
> you want to go through the hassle.

[Jasvir, 2011-01-31 22:59:48]

LGTM

This change only exports caja to maven - it does not introduce any new
dependencies on jars pulled dynamically from maven central.

[plindner1, 2011-02-01 05:26:38]

On 2011/01/31 22:59:48, jasvir wrote:
> LGTM
> 
> This change only exports caja to maven - it does not introduce any new
> dependencies on jars pulled dynamically from maven central.

Cool.  Happy to commit it if you give me privs or just let me know when so we
can push a release to central.

[metaweta, 2011-08-22 16:43:53]

On 2011/02/01 05:26:38, plindner1 wrote:
> On 2011/01/31 22:59:48, jasvir wrote:
> > LGTM
> > 
> > This change only exports caja to maven - it does not introduce any new
> > dependencies on jars pulled dynamically from maven central.
> 
> Cool.  Happy to commit it if you give me privs or just let me know when so we
> can push a release to central.

What's the status of this CL?

[Paul Lindner, 2011-08-22 17:24:47]

Not sure.  Would like to get this CL in..

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:43 AM, <metaweta@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2011/02/01 05:26:38, plindner1 wrote:
>
>> On 2011/01/31 22:59:48, jasvir wrote:
>> > LGTM
>> >
>> > This change only exports caja to maven - it does not introduce any
>>
> new
>
>> > dependencies on jars pulled dynamically from maven central.
>>
>
>  Cool.  Happy to commit it if you give me privs or just let me know
>>
> when so we
>
>> can push a release to central.
>>
>
> What's the status of this CL?
>
>
http://codereview.appspot.com/**3750046/<http://codereview.appspot.com/3750046/>
>



-- 
Paul Lindner -- lindner@inuus.com -- linkedin.com/in/plindner