I have to agree with Carlos, it is a killer for newbies, and it means slow
adoption
But speaking from my experience, I ended up to specify all plugin versions
to reduce ambiguities.
-D
On 4/11/07, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think every maven release should use a defined set of plugin
versions. That would be reproducible and close to what it's happening
now.
Making the user list all plugins it's gonna be killer for newbies.
On 4/11/07, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, the "unwittingly try and build it with 2.1" scenario is a case
> where it would be nice to have a prereq on maven < 2.1 in the POM. I
don't
> think that 2.0.x supports that sort of thing in the <prerequisites>
section,
> but I imagine the enforcer-plugin would do it.
>
> I think we should write something into 2.1 that will allow a
specification
> of a "standard" plugin-version set, and use that for things like the
> lifecycle plugins. Then, we could provide a default version for that
> internally in the maven distro, and let users override it. Also, we
could
> use a plugin that will help users discover and select new versions for
their
> multimodule projects.
>
> Finally, I think we should probably allow configuration of something
similar
> to pluginManagement in the settings.xml, for cases where people are
invoking
> the plugin directly from the command line. This starts to look a little
like
> the old plugin registry, except that it would use syntax in common with
the
> POM, and this time we'd make sure it was bullet-proof before sending it
out.
>
> I just think we need to make a serious effort to see what the
shortcomings
> of the 2.0.x design is in terms of what we're pushing -- reproducible
builds
> -- and then figure out how to make that happen by default in 2.1. If we
want
> to support a migration path based on the modelVersion, that would make
> sense, though I still think we should nag those users about the
> unpredictability involved in that sort of build. Unfortunately, we don't
> have a "developers" vs. "users" runtime profile, so users building that
sort
> of project would see the same warnings...
>
> -john
>
> On 4/11/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I think it's more complicated than just removing that.
> >
> > Firstly, large numbers of command line plugins will stop working.
> >
> > Secondly, we need to provide a solution for implied plugins (we can
> > set the version in the lifecycle and then let the user give
> > pluginManagement to override it, but I'd like to see plugin 'packs'
> > as a better solution to reduce the amount of configuration needed).
> >
> > Thirdly, we need to think carefully about the impact on existing
> > builds. We're not just impacting the people that wrote the build - we
> > impact the random people that grab a project and unwittingly try and
> > build it with 2.1 not knowing the author never tested that, and get
> > the bad experience.
> >
> > I'm still in favour of a compatibility mode that can be driven by the
> > prerequisites or the modelVersion. I say let people use the
> > dependency plugin now to start fixing their builds, but for 2.1 let
> > them make the conscious decision to move up to this.
> >
> > - Brett
> >
> > On 12/04/2007, at 2:54 AM, John Casey wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I'd like to make sure we're all on the same page with the plugin
> > > auto-version resolution stuff that we've been discussing lately (on
> > > the
> > > assembly-plugin vote thread, for one thing). I think it's clear
> > > that we
> > > cannot continue to allow Maven to resolve RELEASE or LATEST meta-
> > > versions
> > > for plugins any more. I'd actually argue that this is bad practice
> > > for ANY
> > > artifact that is to be resolved, including site skins, etc. since
> > > it kills
> > > our ability to deprecate features.
> > >
> > > I'd like to completely remove this from the DefaultPluginManager in
> > > trunk,
> > > so we can start moving away from this practice immediately.
> > >
> > > I guess this is an informal vote on the subject, but I wanted to get
> > > everyone's opinions before I move on it, since it's a fairly
important
> > > change.
> > >
> > > Here's my +1.
> > >
> > > -john
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
