> >> Nice would be, as opposite to the <dependencies>, to have a global > >> <excludes>, no? > >> > >> That way, problems like this are sorted out once and for all. > >> > > > > +1
> Jochen, you do realize that global exclusions would suffer from the same > problems as you described in the A B C scenario. The same problems, but it would be nice anyway. It feels clearer than the 0.0 "hack". Notice, I am not against it, but I also do not have many arguments for it - I think the dev should simply exclude whats not neccessary/wanted. Its clear then from the pom and hard enough for any library developer to not to do it ;-) Ciao, Mario ... (leaving the scene through the left door ;-) )
