for the aggregate aspect
our Apache Parent POM (provided by Maven project to the whole ASF projects)
does use this process goal:
https://github.com/apache/maven-apache-parent/blob/6b850c5f263c9bb4074ebb9a7974344059dd834c/pom.xml#L317
and the aggregation aspect has exactly be done for the
apache
No one ever told me about this convention and I knew about it the
moment I saw the version numbers.
However, Elliote is right, that's not semver.
The alternative would be to put a lookup / compatibility table in
each plugin's readme. But that would be so annoying as a user, because
Maven is just S
Howdy,
Sure, am fine, but from history:
Maven1 had 1,x plugins.
Then Maven2 was fully rewritten, and all plugins became 2.x (despite there
was no "backward compatibility", as Maven1 plugin could never run in Maven2.
Then Maven3 was done with full backward compatibility as one of the goals,
hence t
Am 2023-03-10 um 18:31 schrieb Tamás Cservenák:
Maven plugin cannot have a new major version, as "by convention" it would
mean it requires Maven 4 to run.
As in this case it would be m-remote-resources-p 4.0.0 (as currently it is
3.x,x).
That's is not necessarily correct. Working on Doxia 2 I h
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 12:32 PM Tamás Cservenák wrote:
>
> Maven plugin cannot have a new major version, as "by convention" it would
> mean it requires Maven 4 to run.
> As in this case it would be m-remote-resources-p 4.0.0 (as currently it is
> 3.x,x).
Have we ever actually told anybody that c
Maven plugin cannot have a new major version, as "by convention" it would
mean it requires Maven 4 to run.
As in this case it would be m-remote-resources-p 4.0.0 (as currently it is
3.x,x).
I always assumed maven plugin versions should be observed when "shifted one
position to left".
Something lik
If we're breaking the API, it should be a new major version.
On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 10:11 AM Benjamin Marwell wrote:
>
> +1 for dropping. Make it a new minor Version. We may want to add a
> migration strategy. But then, if there's not even a hit on GitHub... Just
> go with it. We do have a well
+1 for dropping. Make it a new minor Version. We may want to add a
migration strategy. But then, if there's not even a hit on GitHub... Just
go with it. We do have a well working mailing list.
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023, 10:56 Olivier Lamy, wrote:
> not sure how useful this feature is...
> I would say
not sure how useful this feature is...
I would say just drop it...
quick search on github cannot find usage of it...
https://github.com/search?q=%3CrunOnlyAtExecutionRoot%3E+language%3A%22Maven+POM%22&type=code&l=Maven+POM
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 00:44, Tamás Cservenák wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> I wo
Howdy,
I would like to share (and possibly exchange) some recollections about the
m-remote-resource-p.
For start, there is an ongoing PR to drop all the accumulated legacy stuff:
https://github.com/apache/maven-remote-resources-plugin/pull/26
But what caught my eye are these lines:
https://githu
10 matches
Mail list logo
