On 02.04.2007, at 09:49, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
Personally I think we should only have the plugins defined if the
release jar itself needs them for stability.
...and then have the project define the reports they want?
Otherwise we just deal
with whatever pain Maven is throwing everyone's way and yell at them
to fix.
Er why? It is not our job to be gump and test commons builds
against the latest random collection of maven plugins.
Don't get that either. I want to make our life's less painful.
Specifying the versions helps a great deal with that.
If anyone looks objectively at the amount of time spent on maven on
this mailing list over the past few years its incredible. I'd
suggest its been a big distraction from actually coding for some
people.
True
The basic problem in this case is that maven builds aren't
repeatable. They are only repeatable if you have exactly the same
version of maven and each one of its many plugins.
The good thing - you *can* achieve this. The bad thing - it's not the
default.
This isn't something that plagues ant - there if you write a build
script it keeps on working - its called backwards compatibility.
I have been bashing maven once I did the multi-project move for
JCI ...but I am now more exposed to ant again and I have to say for
small builds ant may be OK ...but for big builds it makes you cry. So
I am again back to preferring maven over ant ...but we'll see how the
JCI release will work out :)
cheers
--
Torsten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
