Le lun. 12 juin 2023 à 01:36, Guillaume Nodet a écrit :
> Le dim. 11 juin 2023 à 23:12, Romain Manni-Bucau a
> écrit :
>
> >
> >
> > Le dim. 11 juin 2023 à 22:28, Guillaume Nodet a
> > écrit :
> >
> >> Those are actually two different questions, but I'd like to raise those
> >> together, since
Isn't the schema named in the POM document itself? Can't we just allow use of
"extended" (read backwards compatible) schemas as the POM is versioned? Then
if/once a specific schema for a use case becomes popular it can be added to
parsers as the required version if needed. Or perhaps that's
Le dim. 11 juin 2023 à 23:12, Romain Manni-Bucau a
écrit :
>
>
> Le dim. 11 juin 2023 à 22:28, Guillaume Nodet a
> écrit :
>
>> Those are actually two different questions, but I'd like to raise those
>> together, since they do affect the same feature.
>>
>> 1/ We currently don't have an XML
Le dimanche 11 juin 2023, 23:31:36 CEST Hunter C Payne a écrit :
> Strange question but maybe it will inspire someone else. Why does the POM
> the user uses to control the build the exact same format as the POMs
> created to express the results of the build? Is that necessary?
it has been done
Strange question but maybe it will inspire someone else. Why does the POM the
user uses to control the build the exact same format as the POMs created to
express the results of the build? Is that necessary? It seems to me the
discussion is about the drawbacks of that approach. Perhaps its
Le dim. 11 juin 2023 à 22:28, Guillaume Nodet a écrit :
> Those are actually two different questions, but I'd like to raise those
> together, since they do affect the same feature.
>
> 1/ We currently don't have an XML schema for the build POM. One
> possibility would be to relax a bit the
Those are actually two different questions, but I'd like to raise those
together, since they do affect the same feature.
1/ We currently don't have an XML schema for the build POM. One
possibility would be to relax a bit the constraints on the main POM schema (
