As one of the reporters of the breaking change tickets I also rather not see this reverted as I think that our plugins should follow The Maven Way and help people do the right thing.
I've seen some voices raises in some of the tickets (after the fact). But how many is it really that has a problem? The case that I take most concern about is that m2e uses the archetypeCatalog param, see [1]. In general I have no problems with us donating the plugin as I don't really see the archetype solution as a core part of Maven. But if we keep it within the Maven project I think we should stick to (our perception of) The Maven way and follow path #1. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARCHETYPE-438 /Anders On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Robert Scholte <rfscho...@apache.org> wrote: > So we have this plugin, which has been released lately as requested by the > community. > It has been released as a 3.x, so it now requires Maven3 and with this > major release[1] we used this opportunity to break compatibility in case > there are parameters we don't want to use anymore. > > One of the things changed is the usage of the reference to the archetype > repository. The original implementation was based on Maven2 and wasn't > using all security features as available in Maven3. This also made it hard > to maintain. > So for example, now it is picking up the artifact repository manager by > default, it'll use its credentials when required, etc. > By removing these parameters is should also be easier to use this plugin > (less parameters = less chance of mistakes) > > So I think we made quite some people happy now that things are working > much more according to Maven default behavior. However, other have issues > to use the archetype. Sometimes it is because they are using deprecated > parameters (or use parameters which should have been removed as well), > others have a local setup which now requires to add the repository to their > settings.xml. > > I still think that ARCHETYPE-439[2] is valid, so I'd prefer not to revert. > Instead I hope we can find a solution which will fit better for the most. > > I can think of the following solutions: > 1. Continue with taken decision and further improve usage without extra > parameters > 2. Find somebody willing to maintain the plugin at ASF > 3. Donate the plugin > 4. Revert > > #3 is a serious option, because it seems that within the team there's > nobody willing to maintain the plugin, probably due to other Maven > sub-projects which have a higher priority. > > Any thoughts on this topic? > > Robert > > [1] http://semver.org/ > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARCHETYPE-439 > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
