-3142 MNG-3142 ) that
needs to be investigated.
Current workaround is to explicitly define the version, and the best
location is an Organisation's super pom.
Thanks Brian
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Should-all-plugins-have-an-explicit-version--tf4239703s177.html#
>No complaints with that approach. This does beg the question, however -
>should these default versions already be specified in the Maven 2.0.x
Super
>POM?
That was discussed in the thread I mentioned (below). I personally don't
think the super-pom should presume to know what versions I want becau
?)
/quote>
No complaints with that approach. This does beg the question, however -
should these default versions already be specified in the Maven 2.0.x Super
POM?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Should-all-plugins-have-an-explicit-version--tf4239703s177.html#a12064604
Sent f
have an explicit version?
Brian E. Fox wrote:
>
> The best practice is to at least specify the versions in
pluginManagement.
>
Brian - would this approach hold true for all plugins (e.g. clean,
compile,
install, etc?)
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Should-al
Brian E. Fox wrote:
>
> The best practice is to at least specify the versions in pluginManagement.
>
Brian - would this approach hold true for all plugins (e.g. clean, compile,
install, etc?)
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Should-all-plugins-have-an-explici
.
-Original Message-
From: Casey Butterworth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 7:43 PM
To: dev@maven.apache.org
Subject: Should all plugins have an explicit version?
I recently raised issue http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3142
MNG-3142
as there is a problem occuring
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Should-all-plugins-have-an-explicit-version--tf4239703s177.html#a12063865
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-ma
