On 1/12/08, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 12, 2008 3:25 PM, simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't see the point of that at all. Commons-xxx projects do not exist > > for the purposes of testing maven plugins. If commons-xxx can build > > successfully with version N of a plugin, then there is no reason to ever > > use any other version of the plugin. > > > > Well, one minor case is with report plugins, so that the reports > > generated by related modules look similar. But maven can't help with > > that anyway, as it doesn't provide <pluginManagement>. > > Well that boils down to the question, whether we should have a > commons-parent or at least whether we should have only one. For > example, we might as well have a pom with reports only. > > I am personally quite happy about it because I have the feeling that > it helps me. That's the reason why this discussion engages me. Others > (including you?) don't seem to keen on using its features. > > I have no particular feelings if a subproject decides to use a > particular version of the commons-parent pom or not to use it at all. > OTOH, I'd ask that those who want to use it should be left more alone. > <snip/>
Also note: * I believe RMs are left alone to choose ant, m1 or m2, and details that make sense therein * If you have an expectation to be left alone in things such as the generation and content of L&N files, that expectation is unrealistic (in other words, there are some things that interest / should interest everyone and for better or worse, we're consensus driven) -Rahul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
