gnodet commented on issue #8424:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven/issues/8424#issuecomment-6274245492

   After further analysis, I'm closing this issue — there is no simple solution.
   
   **What PR #13406 attempted:** inject profile-scoped properties under the 
`profile.<id>.<key>` namespace, allowing `${profile.scala-2.11.scala.version}` 
to resolve to `2.11` even when both profiles are active simultaneously.
   
   **Why it doesn't meaningfully solve the use case:** the original request is 
that a shared plugin configuration references `${scala.version}` and produces 
two separate executions — one per active profile value. This requires Maven to 
interpolate each profile independently, in its own property context, before 
merging them into the model. That is not what happens today: Maven merges all 
active profiles into a single model first, then interpolates once. At that 
point, the provenance of each property is lost.
   
   With `profile.<id>.<key>`, each profile must still declare its own 
`<execution>` block referencing its own scoped property explicitly. The 
verbosity is identical to today's workaround (hardcoding the ID and value). The 
only marginal gain is when the same property is referenced in multiple places 
within a profile — a minor benefit that doesn't justify the cost:
   - A reserved `profile.*` namespace injected into model properties for every 
active profile
   - Ambiguity when profile IDs contain dots
   - Non-obvious syntax that users are unlikely to discover
   
   **The real fix** would require interpolating each profile independently 
before merging — a significant refactoring of the model builder with broad 
impact. There is no appetite to pursue this at this time.
   
   Closing as Won't Fix.
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to