Guys, you loose me, is using a property a bad idea? Seems like it is what you say. We must make model 4.1.0 not 4.0.0 by design. Using namespace doesn't go against xml at all - and worse, it is not worse than current/4.0.0 state which is NOT xml friendly since namespace are forbidden for ex. Most of what was written is just technically wrong and has solution in maven and outside so not sure anyone brought an actual issue we wouldnt have accepting we do break parsers as soon as we do introduce consumer pom feature.
Or does it mean you want to revert that feature too? Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog <https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.github.io/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064> Javaccino founder (Java/.NET service - contact via linkedin) Le sam. 4 avr. 2026, 20:02, David Jencks <[email protected]> a écrit : > I agree. I didn’t see any arguments why the namespace change was a good > idea, rather than something that was possible to do. I consider deriving > the model version from the namespace as an actively bad idea, as it means > that, to the non specialist maven user, there are now two ways to > apparently specify the model version (namespace and model version element), > and any model version change in the future will require a new namespace as > well. > > David Jencks > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Apr 4, 2026, at 10:02 AM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I feel the same, from the peanut gallery: Elliott explained the > problems > > with the change but I don't think the consequences have been understood. > > > > 2c, > > Gary > > > >> On Sat, Apr 4, 2026, 12:45 Martin Desruisseaux via dev < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Hello Chris > >> > >>> Le 04/04/2026 à 17:21, Chris Lafren a écrit : > >>> > >>> I don't understand where that "been there for 4 years" argument comes > >>> from. > >>> > >> I don't know neither, I just repeated what I saw on the mailing list, > >> but never verified. > >> > >> The thing that worry me a little bit is that I don't really know how > >> well understood the technical issues were before the vote took place. Do > >> anyone who voted A understand that this is equivalent to a vote for > >> changing the package name of a library even if we only added a few > >> classes to that package without breaking the compatibility of any > >> previously existing classes? Or are we victims of the fact that XML > >> namespaces often have a year or version number in their URL, which gives > >> a psychological incentive to increase that number even if we should not? > >> > >> If there is no answer to above question, I guess that I have to assume > >> that the vote was an informed choice in favor of preserving established > >> Maven 4 practice of the last few years, and that it was considered by > >> the majority as more important than creating technical debt. > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
