Correct me if I'm wrong, but old projects using old Maven builds will not be affected by this. So we eliminate those from the discussion.
Old projects moving to new Maven builds will need to add a single <property> in their pom, and then everything compiles fine etc. I consider this "maintenance" and based on my experience with moving across versions, I'd be very surprised if this was the only thing they needed to change in their pom (very few people lock down plugin versions, and new plugins sometimes require changes to the pom). If they simply kept using the old Maven build they originally built their project with, they wouldn't need to do this. New projects using the new Maven builds will either use the default that we are discussing (I voted for b) or declare their own default with a single <property> in their pom. Which of the above cases are you most concerned about?? Wayne On 4/29/08, Rainer Pruy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Wayne Fay schrieb: > > My vote is [b]. Consistent builds are the very foundation upon which we > > operate. > > > > (Sorry Wayne it is not personal, I just came across that thought while > reading your post.....) > > Putting up a default behaviour that deviates from current default, will not > bring consistent builds for those projects. > Most likely the files are not compatible with the new implied default. > > So the only intention can be ensuring consistent builds for any *future* > project (version). > Thus flagging encoding problems will improve awareness and will surely > contribute more to consistent builds that "changing the rules" > on the game... > Rainer > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
