On 06/05/2010, at 7:23 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote: > I'm about to start releasing plugins and libraries, and I have come to > realize I'm a terrible neat-nick ;) > > I look at the dependencies on maven-archiver and I see that several of > them appear unused, and some can be trimmed down to less invasive > scopes, such as provided. > > Is there any reason why: > > A) org.apache.maven:maven-project and it's likes cannot have scope > "provided" in a plugin/library ? > B) org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-container-default (picked up transitively > from numerous sources or included directly in some poms) cannot have > scope provided ? (Or excluded when not actually used...)
That seems correct in both cases, though I tend to minimise the use of provided, since it makes assumptions about where it is going to be used. No problem with the change, but don't see that it adds any value either. > C) An artifact should be included when it seems unused ? > (We chatted about plexus-utils on #maven-dev yesterday and there might > be something there) Apart from the p-u special case, it's good to run dependency:analyze over it and clean it up, definitely. > > I have this terrible hang-up with minimizing dependency profiles. ( I > promise it's *not* because there's a lot of thread contention going on > in DefaultMavenPluginManager - I will fix the real cause of that ;) > > Will I be "acting responsibly" if I clean up dependencies and test with > 2.0.11, 2.2.1 and 3.0-beta and then go for release ? Yep :) - Brett -- Brett Porter br...@apache.org http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
