On 14/06/2010, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 19:01 +0100, sebb wrote: > > On 14/06/2010, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 17:54 +0100, sebb wrote: > > > > On 14/06/2010, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 17:06 +0100, sebb wrote: > > > > > > On 14/06/2010, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 16:28 +0100, sebb wrote: > > > > > > > > On 14/06/2010, Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 11:45 +0000, s...@apache.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Author: sebb > > > > > > > > > > Date: Mon Jun 14 11:45:02 2010 > > > > > > > > > > New Revision: 954415 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=954415&view=rev > > > > > > > > > > Log: > > > > > > > > > > Sort the pluginManagement section > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Modified: > > > > > > > > > > httpcomponents/project/pom.xml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Modified: httpcomponents/project/pom.xml > > > > > > > > > > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpcomponents/project/pom.xml?rev=954415&r1=954414&r2=954415&view=diff > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================================== > > > > > > > > > > --- httpcomponents/project/pom.xml (original) > > > > > > > > > > +++ httpcomponents/project/pom.xml Mon Jun 14 11:45:02 > 2010 > > > > > > > > > > @@ -272,6 +272,32 @@ > > > > > > > > > > </plugins> > > > > > > > > > > <pluginManagement> > > > > > > > > > > <plugins> > > > > > > > > > > + <!-- org.apache.maven.plugins, alpha order by > artifact id --> > > > > > > > > > > + <plugin> > > > > > > > > > > + <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId> > > > > > > > > > > + > <artifactId>maven-assembly-plugin</artifactId> > > > > > > > > > > + <version>2.2-beta-5</version> > > > > > > > > > > + </plugin> > > > > > > > > > > + <plugin> > > > > > > > > > > + <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId> > > > > > > > > > > + <artifactId>maven-antrun-plugin</artifactId> > > > > > > > > > > + <version>1.4</version> > > > > > > > > > > + </plugin> > > > > > > > > > > + <plugin> > > > > > > > > > > + <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId> > > > > > > > > > > + <artifactId>maven-clean-plugin</artifactId> > > > > > > > > > > + <version>2.4.1</version> > > > > > > > > > > + </plugin> > > > > > > > > > > + <plugin> > > > > > > > > > > + <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId> > > > > > > > > > > + > <artifactId>maven-compiler-plugin</artifactId> > > > > > > > > > > + <version>2.3.1</version> > > > > > > > > > > + </plugin> > > > > > > > > > > + <plugin> > > > > > > > > > > + <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId> > > > > > > > > > > + <artifactId>maven-deploy-plugin</artifactId> > > > > > > > > > > + <version>2.5</version> > > > > > > > > > > + </plugin> > > > > > > > > > > <plugin> > > > > > > > > > > <groupId>org.apache.maven.plugins</groupId> > > > > > > > > > > <artifactId>maven-gpg-plugin</artifactId> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sebastian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > While it is certainly a good idea to have versions of > non-core Maven > > > > > > > > > plugins explicitly set in POM, I am not sure it is the > case for core > > > > > > > > > plugins unless we also somehow enforce a very _specific_ > Maven version > > > > > > > > > that matches those core plugin version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maven releases are tested against specific versions of > core plugins and > > > > > > > > > mixing things up may be as ugly as letting Maven always > pick up the > > > > > > > > > newest version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, but how does one know what is a core plugin and what is > not? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please see > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://maven.apache.org/plugins/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > So in theory one should omit all plugin version specifications > for > > > > > > plugins that are in that list? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The very first section of plugin list is defined as 'core' > > > > > --- > > > > > Core plugins Plugins corresponding to default core phases <snip/> > > > > > clean > > > > > compiler > > > > > deploy > > > > > failsafe > > > > > install > > > > > resources > > > > > site > > > > > surefire > > > > > verifier > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > At the very least these plugins one ought not to mess with. > > > > Well, we have to either override the site plugin version, or downgrade > > > > maven-project-info-reports-plugin to a version that works with the old > > > > site plugin. > > > > > > > > > A more > > > > > definitive list with corresponding versions can be found in the so > > > > > called superdom file (pom-4.0.0.xml in case of Maven 2.0.x) > shipped with > > > > > the maven uber jar. > > > > > > > > Thanks, that explains where the 2.0-beta-7 version for > > > > maven-site-plugin comes from. > > > > > > > > > Only in extreme cases such as a known compatibility issue we should > > > > > temporarily override those versions > > > > > > > > I don't think that is viable in the long term. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why? > > > > Because if a non-core plugin works with a specific version of a core > > plugin, it may break when using a different Maven version. > > > > > Likewise, a plugin may break when used with a different version of Maven > kernel. This can be especially severe if that happens to a core plugin. > I could not care less if Clover gets all screwy as long as jars get > built correctly.
In this case the problem was with "mvn site" which is fairly important. AIUI, most of Maven is in plugins, rather than in the kernel, so specifying fixed versions of plugins should reduce the chance of breakage when switching versions. > > > > Another approach (which would allow more uptodate plugins to be used) > > > > would be to use the versions on the page: > > > > > > > > http://maven.apache.org/plugins/index.html > > > > > > > > We ought to be able to assume that those versions work together. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we _might_ be able to assume plugins are compatible with one > > > another but I do not think we can assume compatibility with all > > > different versions of Maven kernel out there. > > > > > > I think it is more reasonable to use core plugins that match the kernel > > > version unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. > > > > In which case surely we have to specify the exact Maven version to use? > > > > Or am I missing something here? > > > > > And how exactly do you intend to do so, other than by stating in > BUILDING.txt no one usually bothers to read? I don't know, that's why it's important to try and ensure that the code builds OK as far as possible on all versions of Maven. Same as we do for Java versions. > There is no point arguing any further. I stated my objection. If you > think it is baseless, feel free to ignore it. > I asked on the Maven User list, and got the following reply: On 14/06/2010, Jason van Zyl <ja...@sonatype.com> wrote: > All plugins because unfortunately we haven't had the best track record with > respect to behavioral compatibility between releases. > > Here is the link: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-users/201006.mbox/%3ccf055b97-cb07-45ed-bd92-408e02af1...@sonatype.com%3e --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@hc.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@hc.apache.org
