I dont think is related, this bug only affects plugins that use dependencyManagement. It does nothing with the plugin dependencies.
This wold change plugin classpath for all those plugins that have dependency management, but it will change them to what the plugin was successfully built with, so I don't think it should be a huge problem to put it for 2.0.x On Feb 19, 2008 9:56 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 19, 2008 5:46 PM, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 19, 2008 9:40 AM, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On 19-Feb-08, at 9:36 AM, Carlos Sanchez wrote: > > > > > > > I think you misunderstood. The dependencyManagement is used for > > > > project dependencies, fine with that. > > > > When you use a plugin no dependencyManagement is applied. The current > > > > project depMan shouldn't be applied because it's only for projects, so > > > > that's ok. > > > > > > > > The problem comes when a plugin is built using dependencyManagement to > > > > force some dependencies. When that plugin is used, the > > > > dependencyManagement of the plugin is ignored, so you run it with > > > > different dependencies than the ones you build it with. > > > > > > > > > > So there is no Map used during the plugin's artifact resolution at > > > runtime is what you're saying, yes? > > > > right, and I think it should use the plugin Map that was used during > > the plugin build > > Perhaps related, but I tried specifying a later version of a plugin's > dependency and it was ignored: > > See http://maven.markmail.org/message/km5mlcfsgqlo7le2 > > Niall > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 19, 2008 9:24 AM, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On 19-Feb-08, at 9:07 AM, Carlos Sanchez wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> On Feb 19, 2008 7:46 AM, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On 18-Feb-08, at 11:54 PM, Carlos Sanchez wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> I'd like to get some feedback in MNG-3410, particularly from > > > >>>>> John as > > > >>>>> he has been working on this. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> If you build and install a plugin with managed versions that > > > >>>>> affect > > > >>>>> plugin transitive dependencies, when it's used the dependency > > > >>>>> management is ignored > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> If the dependency management affects the plugin direct dependecies > > > >>>>> it > > > >>>>> works properly because the information is merged. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Dependency management should not affect anything to do with > > > >>>> plugins. > > > >>>> If that is happening that is completely wrong. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Dependencies and what plugins use should be completely separate. A > > > >>>> project's classpath should never affect what is used in a plugin's > > > >>>> execution. > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >>> it is, the problem is dependencyManagement in the plugin pom > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Then somewhere the Map that is used for managed dependencies is > > > >> getting fed into both the project's resolution and the plugin's > > > >> resolution and that definitely needs to be separated. Even if we > > > >> decide there are certain cases where they should be shared (and I > > > >> can't actually think of any real cases except for maybe Antlr vX > > > >> generated code needing Antlr vX runtime code which needs to be > > > >> aligned) they should be separate so we knowingly combine them if > > > >> necessary. > > > >> > > > >> Problem is if you find that shared Map what are we going to break if > > > >> you separate them now? Just thinking aloud. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> eg. > > > >>>>> Plugin A depends on jar B that depends on jar C[1.0] > > > >>>>> A dependencyManagement explicitly forces C[2.0], you build and > > > >>>>> install > > > >>>>> using C[2.0] in the classpath > > > >>>> > > > >>>> dependencyManagement in your POM or in the plugin's POM? > > > >>> > > > >>> dependencyManagement in plugin's pom (A) > > > >>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> If you use plugin A in your pom it will be used with C version 1.0 > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
