On 2009-12-23, at 11:28 AM, Dan Tran wrote:

> It is interesting that 3.0 apha x already drops this feature even thou
> the discussion ( a while back ) asserted it would be deprecated in 3.0
> and remove in 3.1
> 

If you care that much and commit to supporting it put it back.

> However, as I have complained before ;-), this feature is crucially
> needed for multi platforms ( native, c/c++) build of the same project.
> I hope maven team could come up
> with an alternative in 3.x
> 
> -D
> 
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 8:21 AM, fabrice.mercier1 <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> Why do you think it is a bad practice ? I am currently trouble with the
>> choice of setting it to true or false.
>> 
>> Fabrice
>> 
>> 
>> Jason van Zyl-5 wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think it can be in the same vein as the no versions for plugins. Not
>>> a very good idea and potentially harmful.
>>> 
>>> We put it in, deprecate it over 3.0 and it becomes taboo in 3.1. If
>>> it's a bad practice in the majority of cases then we eliminate it.
>>> Over the life of 3.0 to 3.1 should be long enough. We can also start
>>> deprecating things like this in the 2.x line.
>>> 
>>> On 2009-09-04, at 4:49 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I saw this on Benjamin's compat page yesterday and thought I'd throw
>>>> it up for discussion:
>>>> Non-unique Snapshot Deployments
>>>> 
>>>> The setting <uniqueVersion>false</uniqueVersion> for a distribution
>>>> repository has no effect in version 3.x, snapshot artifacts will
>>>> always be deployed using a timestamped version.
>>>> 
>>>> I personally am not a fan of this feature as I've seen it cause more
>>>> problems than it solves. It also harkens back to a time when
>>>> Repository Managers didn't exist and seems like a work around to
>>>> cleaning up old snapshots. So my life would be easier if this didn't
>>>> exist.
>>>> 
>>>> That said, I know of at least one instance where this is required
>>>> (will send a separate thread about that because it's a flaw in Maven
>>>> that should be addressed separately).
>>>> 
>>>> With the focus on 3.0 being a drop in for M2, this clearly would cause
>>>> some heartache for users. Does anyone feel strongly enough that this
>>>> should go back? (and is willing to write the new code for it?)
>>>> 
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Jason
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> Jason van Zyl
>>> Founder,  Apache Maven
>>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
>>> http://twitter.com/SonatypeNexus
>>> http://twitter.com/SonatypeM2E
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----
>> http://old.nabble.com/file/u1297858/ft.gif
>> Architect
>> Almerys, activité santé d'Orange Business Services, TOULOUSE
>> http://www.orange-business.com  http://www.orange-business.com
>> --
>> View this message in context: 
>> http://old.nabble.com/dropping-non-unique-snapshots-in-Maven-3-tp25295809p26904205.html
>> Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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]
> 

Thanks,

Jason

----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder,  Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
----------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to