Stephen Duncan wrote: >Sorry, I don't think I was clear in what I want. I'm not talking >about inclusions INSTEAD of optional scope. > I see. So an inclusion would override the optional setting. This makes sense - though for the benefit (just selecting the same version), it seems a bit too much work. I intended for optional scope to still influence version selection, so adding a version of (,) - that is, everything - to your POM is equivalent.
>For the short term, the latest version of Spring in the repository >simply doesn't define dependencies anymore as far as I can tell, which >gets rid of most of my current problems, so I can now be fully behind >waiting to get the repository to 80%. :) > Well, that's something we'd probably like to correct too. Carlos has developed a proper set. >(Random side note: does >getting the repository up-to-date also involve getting projects like >spring and the commons-* to change the groupId to a package-like name, >and at what point do you get rid of the old name, since several exist >both ways, which is confusing in getting people to go to a "right" >way?) > > yes, thanks for the reminder. We'll use the "symlink" style references to leave the old ones in place too. - Brett --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
