All right. Who's responsible for fixing this? Can I help?
I have two plugin releases waiting for that and if there's anything I can do to speed this up, let me know. Thanks, Séphane On 1/28/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 27 Jan 07, at 1:21 PM 27 Jan 07, Brett Porter wrote: > > On 28/01/2007, at 2:51 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > >> 1) Be in one place not an admixture of something in the parent POM >> and something elsewhere. It's too confusing to know where things >> come from. Unfortunately the help:effecective-pom command doesn't >> provide the source for the bits and pieces merged in. > > This only affects source + javadoc plugins, and because they are in > the parent POM, and because the release plugin uses that profile, > they'll be duplicated. So I agree... but we can't do it yet. > Sure we can: 1) Use a completely new profile 2) Warn people in the next release of the release plugin We can make the old work and encourage the new. >> 2) Lock down every version of everything used which the bit in the >> parent POM currently doesn't do which leads to erratic behavior. > > I already answered your concern here: http://mail- > archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-dev/200701.mbox/% > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > If someone has built then they are ok. When you go to do a release and it pulls in these plugin that are not locked down then you get screwed in the middle of a release. > I wish I'd heard your continued objections then, rather than wait > for a release to raise them again. Anyway, I agree with the goal, > but I don't think it's something we can do yet, and I think we need > to consider a proper solution for all builds, not just ours. Your > snippet doesn't meet this criteria completely either (only adding > versions for the source and javadoc plugins). > >> That snippet should be used, we should deprecate the use the bits >> in the parent POM, it should be removed from the parent POM for >> 2.1 in addition to requiring the locking down of all versions of >> plugins to provide stability. > > Only after the next release of the release plugin that makes this > somewhat possible. No it's not, we use it as a profile. The old stuff works perfectly fine. > > I'm not saying the POM is perfect, but it's better than what's in > 7, and it allows us to actually make some releases now. Not without the whole intact profile. I don't want to release again with something buried in the super POM. Other people will get the old behavior which is fine. Having the complete profile isn't going to hurt anyone else and stabilizes our releases. > > - Brett > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
