On 1/11/08, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 11, 2008 10:06 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 11, 2008 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Theres also the issue of specifying the "version" of the > > > remote-resources-plugin - which in previous discussions people > > > objected to. Please Note this is not configuring commons-parent to > > > *use* that plugin - but just to specify the version number *if* a > > > component does use it. I don't mind it going in and it has no impact > > > unless components use it. Does anyone still have a problem with doing > > > this? Also are there any other changes people think should be made > > > before trying to release commons-parent-7? > > > > I have no particular problem with it, apart from the fact that I find > > it pointless. > > > > If there is some code that actually uses the plugin, then that makes > > sense. This code might be contained in some profile, in other words, > > not used unless explicitly requested. But just to fix a version > > number? What for? > > Because Dennis wants it and if it causes no issues, then its one less > thing to disagree on. > <snip/>
But its one more thing to maintain (and update versions, and trigger a pom release etc. -- as an aside, the number of Maven related releases may have exceeded component releases in the recent past). Also, it isn't adding much value given recent discussions and the current state of its implementation, metadata etc. IMO. I don't think of this as having more or less things to disagree on, but we've had a long discussion and the reservations expressed by more than one of us have been well articulated therein, IMO. -Rahul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
