Le sam. 11 juil. 2020 à 12:39, Robert Scholte <rfscho...@apache.org> a écrit :
> such solution confirms that packaging is used for 2 different things, > which should be split in the next pom definition: > packaging: the resulting artifact > binding: the bindings to use for the default/build lifecycle. > This just replace the term packaging by binding. At the end you define a chain of plugins for a module which leads to artifacts, whatever terms you use this does not change much (and is the only goal of a build right? ;)). Today packaging defines a binding and the actual packaging is just one plugin of the binding loaded from packaging string so IMHO it is the same. > Robert > On 11-7-2020 12:09:49, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> wrote: > are really your plugin bindings so specific to your build that they could > not be reused and need full ad-hoc definition? > > I imagined to provide composite packaging: war+front+living-doc+docker > > in fact, "front", "living-doc", "docker" could provide secondary sets of > reusable plugins bindings: each build would compose (with "+") based on his > requirements > > this could be injected by the LifecycleBindingsInjector [1] > > WDYT? > > Regards, > > Hervé > > [1] > https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/master/maven-core/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/model/plugin/DefaultLifecycleBindingsInjector.java#L63 > > Le vendredi 10 juillet 2020, 19:33:35 CEST Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit : > > Looked a bit on how to impl this kind of extension and it would help if > > maven wouldn't assume everything is hardcoded in components.xml (or eq) > or > > if sisu would enable to reuse its plexus scanner which has a very low > > visibility today. It is also weird to not have access to the guice > injector > > in components and have to go through the plexuscontainer to lookup beans. > > > > As code often says more than words, here a small hello world showing that > > reusing this part of maven "core" is not that trivial: > > > > @Component(role = AbstractMavenLifecycleParticipant.class) > > public class CustomLifecycleExtension extends > > AbstractMavenLifecycleParticipant { > > @Inject > > private PlexusContainer container; > > > > @Override > > public void afterProjectsRead(final MavenSession session) throws > > MavenExecutionException { > > final Path root = > > session.getRequest().getMultiModuleProjectDirectory().toPath(); > > final Path configFolder = root.resolve(".extensions/custom"); > > > > final Path mappings = configFolder.resolve("mappings.xml"); > > if (Files.exists(mappings)) { > > final ComponentSetDescriptor componentSet = > > readAs(mappings, ComponentSetDescriptor.class, null); > > System.out.println(componentSet); > > } > > > > super.afterProjectsRead(session); > > } > > > > private T readAs(final Path path, final Class type, final > > String wrapper) { > > try { > > final ClassRealm container = this.container.getContainerRealm(); > > final Class converterType = container > > > > .loadClass("org.eclipse.sisu.plexus.PlexusBeanConverter"); final Class > > typeLiteralType = container > > .loadClass("com.google.inject.TypeLiteral"); > > final Object converter = this.container.lookup(converterType); > > return type.cast(converterType.getMethod("convert", > > typeLiteralType, String.class).invoke( > > converter, > > typeLiteralType.getMethod("get", > > Class.class).invoke(null, type), > > (wrapper != null ? "" : "") + > > new String(Files.readAllBytes(path), > > StandardCharsets.UTF_8) > > .replaceFirst("]+\\?>", > > "").trim() + (wrapper != null ? "" : ""))); } catch > > (final Exception e) { > > throw new IllegalStateException(e); > > } > > } > > } > > > > Indeed it can't work since componentsetdescriptor uses > plexusconfiguration > > which is not instantiable but it shows the workarounds needed to just > > lookup plexus converter and reuse plexus xml binding. > > > > The code should just look like that IMHO: > > > > @Component(role = AbstractMavenLifecycleParticipant.class) > > public class CustomLifecycleExtension extends > > AbstractMavenLifecycleParticipant { > > @Inject > > private PlexusBeanConverter converter; > > > > @Override > > public void afterProjectsRead(final MavenSession session) throws > > MavenExecutionException { > > final Path root = > > session.getRequest().getMultiModuleProjectDirectory().toPath(); > > final Path configFolder = root.resolve(".extensions/custom"); > > > > final Path mappings = configFolder.resolve("mappings.xml"); > > if (Files.exists(mappings)) { > > final ComponentSetDescriptor componentSet = > > readAs(mappings, ComponentSetDescriptor.class, null); > > System.out.println(componentSet); > > } > > > > super.afterProjectsRead(session); > > } > > > > private T readAs(final Path path, final Class type, final > > String wrapper) { > > try { > > return type.cast( > > converter.convert(TypeLiteral.get(type), > > (wrapper != null ? "" : "") + > > new > > String(Files.readAllBytes(path), StandardCharsets.UTF_8) > > > > .replaceFirst("]+\\?>", "").trim() + > > (wrapper != null ? " > > + ">" : ""))); > > } catch (final Exception e) { > > throw new IllegalStateException(e); > > } > > } > > } > > > > Once this part is fixed (using a custom parser) the next one is how to > > contribute global components from an extension. > > > > I'll ignore the parsing - currently I have a custom sax parser but I hope > > to be able to drop it soon - it is quite easy to contribute back the new > > mapping - note i dropped the lifecycle particupant which does not really > > help there cause only contributing mappings when the extension is created > > makes sense: > > > > @Component(role = StartupContributor.class, instantiationStrategy = > > Strategies.LOAD_ON_START) > > public class StartupContributor { > > @Inject > > private MavenSession session; > > > > @Inject > > private PlexusContainer container; > > > > @PostConstruct > > public void init() { > > final Path root = > > session.getRequest().getMultiModuleProjectDirectory().toPath(); > > final Path configFolder = root.resolve(".extensions/custom"); > > > > final Path mappings = configFolder.resolve("mappings.xml"); > > if (Files.exists(mappings)) { > > final DefaultLifecycleMapping mapping = > > *loadOrParse(*mappings*)*; > > > > container.addComponent(mapping, LifecycleMapping.class, > > "my-mapping"); > > } > > } > > } > > > > Then we can put the new mapping as packaging and voilà :). > > > > If you have tips for the parsing it is welcomed otherwise I'll continue > to > > play with my custom parser. > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > @rmannibucau | Blog > > | Old Blog > > | Github > > | LinkedIn | Book > > > > > > > > > > > Le dim. 5 juil. 2020 à 11:09, Romain Manni-Bucau a > > > > écrit : > > > Here is a sample public build: > https://github.com/talend/component-runtime > > > Interesting modules are - just listing one per type - if master looks > > > weird tag 1.1.19 can be a fallback: > > > > > > 1. > > > > https://github.com/Talend/component-runtime/blob/master/component-starter- > > > server/pom.xml 2. > > > > https://github.com/Talend/component-runtime/blob/master/documentation/pom. > > > xml 3. > > > > https://github.com/Talend/component-runtime/blob/master/images/component-s > > > erver-image/pom.xml > > > > > > Side note being some other - private :( - module do all the 3 things > in a > > > single module - and indeed faking module for build constraints is not > an > > > option. > > > > > > Hope it helps. > > > > > > Le dim. 5 juil. 2020 à 11:02, Hervé BOUTEMY a > > > > > > écrit : > > >> Le samedi 4 juillet 2020, 23:15:19 CEST Romain Manni-Bucau a écrit : > > >> > Le sam. 4 juil. 2020 à 18:09, Stephen Connolly > > >> > > > >> > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > >> > > On Sat 4 Jul 2020 at 16:54, Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> > > > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > Le sam. 4 juil. 2020 à 16:38, Stephen Connolly > > >> > > > > > >> > > > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > >> > > > > On Sat 4 Jul 2020 at 10:21, Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> > > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > >> > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > Well, there are two points I'd like to emphasis: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > 1. I dont think we should wait for 2 majors to get that as a > > >> > > > > > feature, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > would > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > be too late IMHO > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Well does my dynamic phases PR do what you need? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Partly if you think to priority one, it moves the issue a bit > > >> > > >> further > > >> > > >> > > > due > > >> > > > to priority usage which is not great in practice compare to > names + > > >> > > > requires to use 100, 200 etc to be able to inject plugin between > > >> > > > two > > >> > > > > >> > > others > > >> > > > > >> > > > in children with the project becoming more complex. Think we > must > > >> > > >> have > > >> > > >> > > > an > > >> > > > explicit control here even with complex hierarchies. > > >> > > > > >> > > If you need that much control then you’re doing something wrong. > > >> > > > > >> > > How often do you need more than 3-4 plugin executions in strict > > >> > > >> ordered > > >> > > >> > > succession? > > >> > > > >> > All my projects not being libraries since ~7 years. Frontend is > often 3 > > >> > exec, living doc is often 4-5 exec, docker is often 3-4 exec too > (needs > > >> > some computation steps for cds or build time precomputation things) > > >> > plus > > >> > custom resources, git integration meta, custom artifact attachement, > > >> > > >> etc... > > >> I like this approach: can we share a demo project to have a concrete > > >> case? > > >> > > >> > These are very common use cases today in the same build. It is key > to > > >> > > >> keep > > >> > > >> > a single build orchestrator (mvn) for team sharing and CI > > >> > industrialization. Issue being each project set it up differently > and > > >> > making it generic is often overcomplex (living doc can be jbake > plugin > > >> > > >> or a > > >> > > >> > plain mvn exec:java or a groovy script etc... depending doc output > and > > >> > reusability of the code+libs). With software lifecycle passing from > > >> > > >> years > > >> > > >> > to months we are in a more dynamic and changing ecosystem our > beloved > > >> > > >> build > > >> > > >> > tool should align on IMHO. > > >> > > >> I suppose we all agree from very high level point of view: IMHO, we > now > > >> need > > >> to dig a little more in detail on typical cases, with sample demo > builds. > > >> Then > > >> we'll work on solutions. > > >> > > >> > > That sounds like a dedicated plugin use case > > >> > > > >> > This is why i want a generic extension as solution, each project > have > > >> > > >> its > > >> > > >> > specificities and standardizing it is hard and likely adds too much > > >> > complexity compared to let the user enriching default phases (can > be a > > >> > merge of 2 packagings instead of a new one fully defined). > > >> > > >> yes, looks like adding "sub-packaging"s for additional build aspects > > >> (frontend, living doc, container, ...), taking care of eventual > > >> interactions > > >> between each one > > >> > > >> > If I stick to plain maven and want a clean build without > workarounds I > > >> > > >> must > > >> > > >> > write plugins+extensions for each of the apps - plugins and ext > must be > > >> > reusable or not be IMHO, sounds not great whereas maven backbone is > > >> > very > > >> > good, this is why I want to push it to the next step to keep a high > > >> > > >> quality > > >> > > >> > unique (in terms of #tools) build for projects. > > >> > > > >> > I dont have big blockers to do it without patching maven itself so > will > > >> > > >> not > > >> > > >> > spend much energy if idea is not liked but I hope maven tackles it > some > > >> > > >> day > > >> > > >> > in a built in fashion (which means better IDE and ecosystem > integration > > >> > even if personally I dont abuse of that). > > >> > > >> from experience, sharing a solution before sharing issues that the > > >> solution is > > >> expected to solve makes it hard to get consensus. > > >> You shared the high level issue: that's great. > > >> Now we must share sample builds. > > >> And work on solutions. > > >> I'm all in > > >> > > >> Regards, > > >> > > >> Hervé > > >> > > >> > > > > > 2. Pom model is based on inheritance whereas years showed > > >> > > > > > composition > > >> > > > > > >> > > > and > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > reuse is saner so IMHO it does not belong to pom but .mvn > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Your proposal would only work if all projects shared the same > > >> > > > > packaging > > >> > > > > > >> > > > as > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Hervé pointed out that the lifecycle is pulled in based on > > >> > > >> packaging. > > >> > > >> > > > No cause you define the packaging to use in the pom already - > > >> > > > since > > >> > > > > >> > > maven > > >> > > > > >> > > > 2 IIRC - so you can define as much packagings as you want in > .mvn. > > >> > > >> To be > > >> > > >> > > > concrete, it just enables to have an exploded extension in the > > >> > > >> project > > >> > > >> > > > instead of requiring it to be packaged as a jar. Does not > reinvent > > >> > > >> the > > >> > > >> > > > wheel ;). > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > What you probably want is .mvn/${packaging}/lifecycle.xml so > you > > >> > > >> can > > >> > > >> > > > > override custom > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > A bug you may encounter is where phase names are not common > > >> > > >> across the > > >> > > >> > > > > reactor > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Yep, build/extension must enforce common checkpoints (package, > > >> > > >> install, > > >> > > >> > > > deploy out of my head) for all modules. Not a big deal if > validated > > >> > > > > >> > > during > > >> > > > > >> > > > initialize phase I think. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Le sam. 4 juil. 2020 à 10:19, Robert Scholte > > >> > > >> rfscho...@apache.org> > > >> > > >> > > a > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > écrit : > > >> > > > > > > Stephen had an idea for it in Model 5.0.0[1], and IIRC I > > >> > > >> still had > > >> > > >> > > my > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > concerns. > > >> > > > > > > It is still a draft with a lot of ideas, that hasn't > really > > >> > > >> been > > >> > > >> > > > > > discussed > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > yet, because it was still out of reach. > > >> > > > > > > However, we're getting closer > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Robert > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > [1] > > >> > > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/POM+Model+Version+5.0.0 > > >> # > > >> > > >> > > POMModelVersion5.0.0-%3Cproject%3Eelement> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > On 4-7-2020 09:03:08, Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> > > >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> > > >> > > >> > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > I agree I mixed both in my explanation....cause they only > > >> > > > > > > make > > >> > > > > >> > > sense > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > together for a build as shown by the pre/post recurrent > > >> > > >> request > > >> > > >> > > which > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > aims > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > to enrich the lifecycle to bind custom plugins. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Today projects are no more just about creating a jar - war > > >> > > >> are no > > >> > > >> > > > more > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > about java etc... - most of the time (frontend, living > doc, > > >> > > >> build > > >> > > >> > > > time > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > generation, security validation, ....). Indeed you can > force > > >> > > >> to > > >> > > >> > > bind > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > plugins to existing phases but it is quite hard, unatural > and > > >> > > > > >> > > rarely > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > maintainable in time: whatever you do, you want a custom > > >> > > >> packaging > > >> > > >> > > > > using > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > a > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > custom lifecycle (to be able to run separately phases of > the > > >> > > >> build > > >> > > >> > > - > > >> > > > > >> > > > > and > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > sometimes independently, mvn frontend not depending of mvn > > >> > > >> package > > >> > > >> > > or > > >> > > > > >> > > > > mvn > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > compile would be neat but not required for me). > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > So the extension i have in mind will handle both or > wouldnt > > >> > > > > > > be > > >> > > > > > >> > > > usable. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > About loosing the convention, after fighting for 7 years > to > > >> > > >> not > > >> > > >> > > > respect > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > it, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I think the ecosystem changed and we must accept it as > bazel > > >> > > >> and > > >> > > >> > > > gradle > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > do. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Does not mean we break ourself, we keep our default, it > just > > >> > > >> means > > >> > > >> > > an > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > application must be able to redefining its own > > >> > > >> lifecycle+packaging > > >> > > >> > > > > (which > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > is a pair named a build ;)). > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Think we can't stack plugin on a single phase anymore, > having > > >> > > >> 5+ > > >> > > >> > > > > plugins > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > on > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > pre-package is very hard to maintain and share in a team - > > >> > > >> plus it > > >> > > >> > > > > doesnt > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > really makes sense on a build point of view. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Indeed we can add phases as we have process classes after > > >> > > >> compile, > > >> > > >> > > > > > > prepackage before package etc.. but it stays arbitrary for > > >> > > >> maven > > >> > > >> > > > > project > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > dev and does not reflect the agility projects take these > days > > >> > > >> IMHO > > >> > > >> > > > and > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > if > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > done in our core delivery it would slow down most build > for > > >> > > > > > > no > > >> > > > > > > gain > > >> > > > > > >> > > > so > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > it > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > must be in user land IMHO. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hope it makes more sense presented this way. > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Le sam. 4 juil. 2020 à 05:28, Hervé BOUTEMY a > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > écrit : > > >> > > > > > > > first: thanks for sharing > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > from a high level point of view, the risk I see is to > loose > > >> > > >> our > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > conventions. > > >> > > > > > > > But let's try and see before judging > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I think there are 2 topics currently mixed: > > >> > > > > > > > - default lifecycle phases: > > >> > > > > > > > do you want to add or remove phases? [1] > > >> > > > > > > > - default plugin bindings: > > >> > > > > > > > clearly, you want to have specific default bindings. On > > >> > > >> default > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > bindings, as > > >> > > > > > > > they are defined per-packaging [2] (that's what is > > >> > > > > > > > triggered > > >> > > > > >> > > behind > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > packaging > > >> > > > > > > > in pom.xml) > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Regards, > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hervé > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > [1] > > >> > > > > >> > > https://maven.apache.org/ref/3.6.3/maven-core/lifecycles.html > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > [2] > > >> > > >> https://maven.apache.org/ref/3.6.3/maven-core/default-bindings.html > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > Le vendredi 3 juillet 2020, 09:20:25 CEST Romain > > >> > > >> Manni-Bucau a > > >> > > >> > > > écrit > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Wonder if we already discussed defining the lifecycle > in > > >> > > >> the > > >> > > >> > > > > project > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > (maybe > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > in $root/.mvn). > > >> > > > > > > > > High level the need is to be able to change the > default > > >> > > > > >> > > lifecycle > > >> > > > > >> > > > > in > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > root pom without having to define a custom extension > - in > > >> > > > > > > > > other > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > words > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > it > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > is > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > about having a built-in extension. > > >> > > > > > > > > The typical need is to add a mojo in the default > > >> > > > > > > > > lifecycle > > >> > > > > > > > > (add > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > frontend > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > magement for ex) or replace some plugins by others > (for > > >> > > > > > > > > example > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > compiler > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > by > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > scalac plugin, surefire by spec2 plugin for a scala > based > > >> > > > > >> > > project > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > etc...). > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > The way I'm seeing it is to let the xml defining the > > >> > > >> lifecycle > > >> > > >> > > be > > >> > > > > >> > > > > put > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > .mvn/default-lifecycle.xml - I don't know if we want > to > > >> > > >> use > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > the > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > prefix > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > (default here) as a reference you can put in the pom > but > > >> > > >> at > > >> > > >> > > least > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > default > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > makes sense IMO. > > >> > > > > > > > > The lifecycle.xml itself would likely be extended to > add > > >> > > >> some > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > precondition > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > to each plugin (if src/main/frontend exists then add > > >> > > > > >> > > frontend:npm > > >> > > > > >> > > > > for > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ex). > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I know it is a quite common need I have and not > something > > >> > > >> I > > >> > > >> > > would > > >> > > > > >> > > > > put > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > in > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > a > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > custom extension because it is very "by project" and > not > > >> > > > > > >> > > > shareable > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > so a > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > shared extension does not make sense and packaging a > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > plugin/extension > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > for a > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > single project is bothering for nothing. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I'm planning to give a try with a custom extension in > the > > >> > > > > >> > > summer > > >> > > > > >> > > > > but > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > thought it can be worth some discussion there too. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Wdyt? > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > > >> > > > > > > > > @rmannibucau | Blog > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > | Old Blog > > >> > > > > > > > > | Github > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > | LinkedIn | Book > > >> > > >> > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performan > > >> c > > >> > > >> > > e > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > >> > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > -- > > >> > > > > Sent from my phone > > >> > > > > >> > > -- > > >> > > Sent from my phone > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
