Reading more responses, it seems like a lot of people want A so Maven can "help" people with their builds. In the long-run (post 2.1), I also like A, but we can't jump there overnight.
Today I prefer B, but I am OK with A if we do the following: 1. Have a tag in the pom, which is also available on the command line, named "unstable_build". Archetype should be modified to insert this tag and it should default to true (for now). 2. If unstable_build is true, we should throw a message at the beginning and end of the build that says "Maven is running in UNSTABLE build mode. Go here http://maven.apache.org/FAQ/UnstableBuild to get rid of this message." and then we have a FAQ that talks about versioning things, how to lock things down, why its a good thing, etc. 3. If unstable_build is true and versions are unspecified, then Maven works like it does today. The tag unstable_build is specifically chosen to be somewhat offensive/negative and with immediately obvious meaning -- hopefully this is true for our international friends, too. No QE/QA group in the world would allow a self-declared "unstable build" pass their organization. But new users or expert users who don't want their versions locked down (yet) can still get into Maven and get things done without hassles. I appreciate the comments about "helping" people get their builds right etc and generally agree, but I don't think we can jump to this extreme overnight. So let's deprecate the idea of not specifying versions and then perhaps we can eliminate it (require all versions) in 2.2, 2.3, or 3.x. Wayne On 9/2/07, Wayne Fay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [X] (B) Retain the current behaviour, but make using the enforcer a > > best practice to do the above, or some other control mechanism such > > as having the repository manager handle the available plugins > > I am thinking about the new user experience and winning more converts. As > such, I think the current behavior is best. Once they get using Maven more > seriously (and in corporate environments that know what they're doing), I > think adding the Enforcer configuration and locking versions down will come > naturally. But *requiring* it seems excessive -- unless we're doing that > ourselves somewhere, with plugin packs or similar, then I feel better about > it. > > Wayne > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
