To clarify more the matter. Should we think about DependencyManagement no only as a default value provider, but also as a modifier of inherited dependencies? Does it apply to other parameters like the <version> itself and <optional>?.
Jörg Schaible-3 wrote: > > softwarepills wrote: >> I usually think in DependencyManagement as a "by default" section, i >> mean, the version and scope you set in DependencyManagement is the >> version and scope you get if ommited in the real dependency in the POM >> and child POMs. >> >> But, i have found that if i insert provided scope in the >> DependencyManagement section, any compile dependency and transitive >> compile dependency will be "upgraded" to provided. >> >> Is this correct? > > Yes. > >> Is this the intended behavior? > > Yes. > >> If yes, this is a inetresting tool to exclude artifacts form being >> packaged, right? > > Yes. > > :) > > You'll need M2.0.6 or greater though ... > > -Jörg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/DependencyManagement-to-force-scope-tp19776450p19776904.html Sent from the Maven - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
