On Jan 12, 2008 2:33 PM, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Niall Pemberton wrote:
> > This is not quite the case - reproducability is the reason for
> > specifying the version, but not the reason for specifying the version
> > in the parent pom. The reason for specifying version numbers in the
> > parent is to not have to go through endless component poms updating
> > version numbers - maintain the version numbers in the parent and just
> > keep the commons-parent version up-to-date in the components.
In contrary, it isn't.
The version should (at least IMO) be specified by the pom, which
requests the plugin, because that pom known what features it wants or
doesn't want. Of course, if a child pom specifies additional code or
configuration, it must be able to change the version number. What
nonsense would it be to deal with the compiler plugin in the parent
pom (as we do it now), which is otherwise completely ignored by the
child poms (apart from specifying a Java version for source and
target, as it is now) and force the childs to be aware of the
differences between the various versions of the compiler plugin?
Jochen
--
Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you think before
you break 'em.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
