Re: POM Model version 4.1.0 in 3.4.0-SNAPSHOTs

On 24 August 2016 at 04:50, Robert Scholte wrote: > I realized last ApacheCon that I wasn't clear about my definiton of the > consumer-pom. > I don't think it should be a flattened pom with only the dependency > information. Instead it shouldn't be a pom (matching the

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven WAR Plugin version 3.0.0 (Take 2)

+1: here is my voice On 8/24/16, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote: > Hi, > > We solved 33 issues: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12318121=12331760 > > There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA: >

[VOTE] Release Apache Maven WAR Plugin version 3.0.0 (Take 2)

Hi, We solved 33 issues: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12318121=12331760 There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20MWAR%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Open%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC%2C%20priority%20DESC

Re: Building Maven from scratch

Hi Björn, On 24/08/16 08:57, Björn Höfling wrote: Hi Karl Heinz, On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 21:51:11 +0200 Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote: Hi Björn, On 23/08/16 08:25, Björn Höfling wrote: I want to build maven without haven _ANY_ maven/plugin binary. How can I do that? First you

Re: POM Model version 4.1.0 in 3.4.0-SNAPSHOTs

Am 08/24/16 um 08:23 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: > version ranges: I hate version ranges... :) > notice: what is the issue with version ranges? the generated consumer pom can > contain version ranges, since it is a long-standing feature It would be really cool if the whole dependency resolution could

Re: POM Model version 4.1.0 in 3.4.0-SNAPSHOTs

I realized last ApacheCon that I wasn't clear about my definiton of the consumer-pom. I don't think it should be a flattened pom with only the dependency information. Instead it shouldn't be a pom (matching the pom.xsd) at all. Maybe it should be called something like consumer-dom (dependency

Re: POM Model version 4.1.0 in 3.4.0-SNAPSHOTs

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Martijn Dashorst < martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Fred Cooke wrote: > > Fair call re embedded pom, however it's quite convenient to just browse > to > > it and read. > I'd like to vent another opinion:

Re: POM Model version 4.1.0 in 3.4.0-SNAPSHOTs

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Fred Cooke wrote: > Fair call re embedded pom, however it's quite convenient to just browse to > it and read. I'd like to vent another opinion: the build pom makes it hard to grok the information I need as a consumer of a library. I really

Re: POM Model version 4.1.0 in 3.4.0-SNAPSHOTs

The consumer Pom is for machine to machine, it should be human readable because that is nice, but intent is never human generated. Switching to this separation allows us to be more radical in the changes to the build Pom. The only reason we deploy packaging Pom's build Pom is for inheritance. If

Re: POM Model version 4.1.0 in 3.4.0-SNAPSHOTs

I still find it a bit off that the original real POM won't always be directly available anymore. Other tools create fake POMs because they *have* to - there's no other option. I feel like some fidelity would be lost. Diffability would be lost (from a scenario where there's nothing to diff).

Re: Building Maven from scratch

Hi Karl Heinz, On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 21:51:11 +0200 Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote: > Hi Björn, > > On 23/08/16 08:25, Björn Höfling wrote: > > I want to build maven without haven _ANY_ maven/plugin binary. How > > can I do that? > > First you can do that only till Maven 3.3.9

Re: POM Model version 4.1.0 in 3.4.0-SNAPSHOTs

Le mercredi 24 août 2016 18:41:59 Fred Cooke a écrit : > Fair call re embedded pom, however it's quite convenient to just browse to > it and read. > > I've occasionally gone looking for details from poms of artefacts and found > a mess and missing stuff, and been annoyed. It probably wasn't

Re: POM Model version 4.1.0 in 3.4.0-SNAPSHOTs

Fair call re embedded pom, however it's quite convenient to just browse to it and read. I've occasionally gone looking for details from poms of artefacts and found a mess and missing stuff, and been annoyed. It probably wasn't gradle's fault, though. Just a sloppy author. If I'm honest I wouldn't

Re: POM Model version 4.1.0 in 3.4.0-SNAPSHOTs

Le mercredi 24 août 2016 14:04:12 Fred Cooke a écrit : > That should have separation between builder Pom and consumer Pom. For > packaging=pom we deploy the builder Pom using classifier=build > *for all other packaging a we do not deploy the builder Pom*. > > I don't like the sound of this. The

Re: obtain java spec version from Forked VM

No problem. I will change logic and i will run my test. Unfortunately JDK9 cannot be used in Jenkins because java compiler 1.5 is unsupported by jigsaw jdk however in plugin 3.0 it would be just fine. Checking module-info.class that exists makes sense to me. Cheers Tibor On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at

Re: POM Model version 4.1.0 in 3.4.0-SNAPSHOTs

Le mercredi 24 août 2016 11:29:26 Fred Cooke a écrit : > Someone nailed it when they said it'd be two big decisions, one for JRE one > for MVN. > > But here's the reality: People are just going to grab and use "the latest", > whatever it is. > > What does that mean? We'll probably start seeing

Re: POM Model version 4.1.0 in 3.4.0-SNAPSHOTs

Le mardi 23 août 2016 22:52:18 Christian Schulte a écrit : > Am 08/23/16 um 22:33 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: > > yes, people providing libraries have this big choice to do: when to > > upgrade > > minimum JRE version for consumers. > > > > yes, we can add them another new big decision to take: when

Re: POM Model version 4.1.0 in 3.4.0-SNAPSHOTs

Le mercredi 24 août 2016 00:45:28 Christian Schulte a écrit : > Am 08/24/16 um 00:40 schrieb Christian Schulte: > > Am 08/23/16 um 22:33 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: > >> yes, people providing libraries have this big choice to do: when to > >> upgrade > >> minimum JRE version for consumers. > >> > >>

Re: POM Model version 4.1.0 in 3.4.0-SNAPSHOTs

Le mardi 23 août 2016 23:25:30 Christian Schulte a écrit : > Am 08/23/16 um 23:17 schrieb Paul Benedict: > > Truthfully, I must say a lot of this conversation sounds much like > > Subversion's client/server architecture: > > > > *) The server has a Repository Format version = "build POM" > > *)