On 1/11/08, Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rahul Akolkar wrote: > > 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). > > We don't have to use the latest versions if we don't want to. If we are > happy with version 1.0 we can stick with that for ever and ever, without > the need to update commons-parent. > > The number of Maven related release will decrease over time, once we > have settled in on how we want to do all things Maven. > <snip/>
Yes, thats the theory. > > Also, it > > isn't adding much value given recent discussions and the current state > > of its implementation, metadata etc. IMO. > > See my comment to Jochen. > <snap/> I don't buy the reproducibility argument in this context. > > 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. > > There has been misunderstandings in said discussions regarding this. I > suggest that you read what Niall wrote in the first mail of this thread > once more, as he summed up the implications of the change nicely. > <snip/> I responded to his direct question (or tried to, apparently) about any downsides to configure mrrp version in the parent (at this point in time). -Rahul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
