Several MRESOLVER issues

[Michael Osipov]

Folks,

who seconds the following issues for Maven Resolver 1.1:

MRESOLVER-4: Use java.util.Objects#requireNonNull to intercept null input
MRESOLVER-5: Update minimum Java version to 1.7
MRESOLVER-6: Use java.nio.charset.StandardCharsets wherever possible

Michael

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-05-13 um 23:39 schrieb Michael Osipov:

Am 2017-05-13 um 22:38 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:

Le samedi 13 mai 2017, 00:58:45 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :

Am 2017-05-13 um 00:30 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:

Le vendredi 12 mai 2017, 13:50:37 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :

Am 2017-05-12 um 08:25 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:

Jenkins build is not flaky: it is strict on dependency resolution
from
cache, which is an intent, not a bug


This pretty much explains why a lot of ITs fail here at work with a
empty repo. I will to work this through.


beware to not make the ITs fail with previous Maven versions


All I did is this:
https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/commit/5c01864e44c7c96ca

c95545e8568acd044b6d7dc

ok, just tested with Maven 3.0.5: this does not add more failures
(notice that
existing failures show we already did some mistakes in the past
regarding some
updated ITs...)


I reran Maven 3.5.0, 3.3.9 on Core ITs master on two operating systems.
Both pass. Then I ran 3.0.5, it fails just like you noticed. Except one
failure, this is due to the embedded mode. Several ITs are not
wellsuited for embedded mode (single VM).

The single in 3.0.5 is in MavenITmng0947OptionalDependencyTest. You
might remember that I have done recently some improvements to "optional"
in Core as well es to Core IT Support plugins: MNG-6229. It now payed
off. The optional flag was missing on the dep tree output, so the test
was impcomplete. Now, an issue has been detected in 3.0.5 or the IT itself:

Actual:

[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG] Dumping artifact list:
D:\Entwicklung\Projekte\maven-integration-testing\core-it-suite\target\test-classes\mng-0947\target\compile.txt

[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1
(optional)
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1
[INFO]
[INFO] --- maven-it-plugin-dependency-resolution:2.1-SNAPSHOT:runtime
(test) @ consumer ---
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG] Dumping artifact list:
D:\Entwicklung\Projekte\maven-integration-testing\core-it-suite\target\test-classes\mng-0947\target\runtime.txt

[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:c:jar:0.1
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1
(optional)
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1
[INFO]
[INFO] --- maven-it-plugin-dependency-resolution:2.1-SNAPSHOT:test
(test) @ consumer ---
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG] Dumping artifact list:
D:\Entwicklung\Projekte\maven-integration-testing\core-it-suite\target\test-classes\mng-0947\target\test.txt

[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:c:jar:0.1
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1
(optional)
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1


Expected:

List compile = verifier.loadLines(
"target/compile.txt", "UTF-8" );
assertTrue( compile.toString(), compile.contains(
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertTrue( compile.toString(), compile.contains(
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertEquals( 2, compile.size() );

List runtime = verifier.loadLines(
"target/runtime.txt", "UTF-8" );
assertTrue( runtime.toString(), runtime.contains(
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:c:jar:0.1" ) );
assertTrue( runtime.toString(), runtime.contains(
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertTrue( runtime.toString(), runtime.contains(
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertEquals( 3, runtime.size() );

List test = verifier.loadLines( "target/test.txt",
"UTF-8" );
assertTrue( test.toString(), test.contains(
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:c:jar:0.1" ) );
assertTrue( test.toString(), test.contains(
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertTrue( test.toString(), test.contains(
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertEquals( 3, test.size() );


I need to have a closer look at it through the Maven versions.


Tackled it. Any objections to merge 
44ae63380768e53fab11ffb73131f201b268ed81 on Core ITs?


Michael



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Michael Osipov]

Am 2017-05-13 um 22:38 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:

Le samedi 13 mai 2017, 00:58:45 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :

Am 2017-05-13 um 00:30 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:

Le vendredi 12 mai 2017, 13:50:37 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :

Am 2017-05-12 um 08:25 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:

Jenkins build is not flaky: it is strict on dependency resolution from
cache, which is an intent, not a bug


This pretty much explains why a lot of ITs fail here at work with a
empty repo. I will to work this through.


beware to not make the ITs fail with previous Maven versions


All I did is this:
https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/commit/5c01864e44c7c96ca
c95545e8568acd044b6d7dc

ok, just tested with Maven 3.0.5: this does not add more failures (notice that
existing failures show we already did some mistakes in the past regarding some
updated ITs...)


I reran Maven 3.5.0, 3.3.9 on Core ITs master on two operating systems. 
Both pass. Then I ran 3.0.5, it fails just like you noticed. Except one 
failure, this is due to the embedded mode. Several ITs are not 
wellsuited for embedded mode (single VM).


The single in 3.0.5 is in MavenITmng0947OptionalDependencyTest. You 
might remember that I have done recently some improvements to "optional" 
in Core as well es to Core IT Support plugins: MNG-6229. It now payed 
off. The optional flag was missing on the dep tree output, so the test 
was impcomplete. Now, an issue has been detected in 3.0.5 or the IT itself:


Actual:

[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG] Dumping artifact list: 
D:\Entwicklung\Projekte\maven-integration-testing\core-it-suite\target\test-classes\mng-0947\target\compile.txt
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1 (optional)
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1
[INFO]
[INFO] --- maven-it-plugin-dependency-resolution:2.1-SNAPSHOT:runtime (test) @ 
consumer ---
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG] Dumping artifact list: 
D:\Entwicklung\Projekte\maven-integration-testing\core-it-suite\target\test-classes\mng-0947\target\runtime.txt
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:c:jar:0.1
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1 (optional)
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1
[INFO]
[INFO] --- maven-it-plugin-dependency-resolution:2.1-SNAPSHOT:test (test) @ 
consumer ---
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG] Dumping artifact list: 
D:\Entwicklung\Projekte\maven-integration-testing\core-it-suite\target\test-classes\mng-0947\target\test.txt
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:c:jar:0.1
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1 (optional)
[INFO] [MAVEN-CORE-IT-LOG]   org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1


Expected:

List compile = verifier.loadLines( "target/compile.txt", 
"UTF-8" );
assertTrue( compile.toString(), compile.contains( 
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertTrue( compile.toString(), compile.contains( 
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertEquals( 2, compile.size() );

List runtime = verifier.loadLines( "target/runtime.txt", 
"UTF-8" );
assertTrue( runtime.toString(), runtime.contains( 
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:c:jar:0.1" ) );
assertTrue( runtime.toString(), runtime.contains( 
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertTrue( runtime.toString(), runtime.contains( 
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertEquals( 3, runtime.size() );

List test = verifier.loadLines( "target/test.txt", "UTF-8" );
assertTrue( test.toString(), test.contains( 
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:c:jar:0.1" ) );
assertTrue( test.toString(), test.contains( 
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:d:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertTrue( test.toString(), test.contains( 
"org.apache.maven.its.mng0947:e:jar:0.1 (optional)" ) );
assertEquals( 3, test.size() );


I need to have a closer look at it through the Maven versions.


that's why I don't like changing default plugins versions:

1. depending on default plugins versions is a bad practice: IMHO, having
old plugins helps people know that they should not rely on it


This basically means that people would need to provide versions
explicitly in the POMs starting with Maven 4.


??? Why are you talking about Maven 4?


If you are saying that depending on default version is a bad practice it
actually means to me that this should change in the new major. Shouldn't it?

this is a bad practice from a very long time, even in the Maven 2.x time: what
should change more in next Maven version that would show it more, without
breaking the magic that these defaults are used to? A warning message
proposing to add pluginManagement corresponding to current Maven version used?
Or propose a parent pom to add?


I think a warning for < 4.0 to fix the version would be best and have it 
fail in 4.0 if the version of 

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Robert Scholte]

On Sat, 13 May 2017 22:38:55 +0200, Hervé BOUTEMY   
wrote:



Le samedi 13 mai 2017, 00:58:45 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :

Am 2017-05-13 um 00:30 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
> Le vendredi 12 mai 2017, 13:50:37 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :
>> Am 2017-05-12 um 08:25 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
>>> Jenkins build is not flaky: it is strict on dependency resolution  
from

>>> cache, which is an intent, not a bug
>>
>> This pretty much explains why a lot of ITs fail here at work with a
>> empty repo. I will to work this through.
>
> beware to not make the ITs fail with previous Maven versions

All I did is this:
https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/commit/5c01864e44c7c96ca
c95545e8568acd044b6d7dc
ok, just tested with Maven 3.0.5: this does not add more failures  
(notice that
existing failures show we already did some mistakes in the past  
regarding some

updated ITs...)


>>> that's why I don't like changing default plugins versions:
>>>
>>> 1. depending on default plugins versions is a bad practice: IMHO,  
having

>>> old plugins helps people know that they should not rely on it
>>
>> This basically means that people would need to provide versions
>> explicitly in the POMs starting with Maven 4.
>
> ??? Why are you talking about Maven 4?

If you are saying that depending on default version is a bad practice it
actually means to me that this should change in the new major.  
Shouldn't it?
this is a bad practice from a very long time, even in the Maven 2.x  
time: what

should change more in next Maven version that would show it more, without
breaking the magic that these defaults are used to? A warning message
proposing to add pluginManagement corresponding to current Maven version  
used?

Or propose a parent pom to add?



IIRC up until Maven 2.0.8 there were no default plugin version, it was  
always selecting the latest when not specified. This was bad, because a  
new release of a plugin could suddenly make projects fail.
Since Maven 2.0.9 there we started specifying default values to make  
everything more predictable.
Right now we're also moving these information to the matching  
packaging-plugin, so the maven-jar-plugins specifies the lifecycle-plugins  
and their versions.
So in the end we should only specify the packaging-plugins in Maven core.  
Ideally these should not be part of maven-core, but that will it harder to  
start using Maven. For that reason it will be likely that some plugins  
will still need to be specified with the Maven distribution.


Robert


>> Looks like a lot of
>> hassle, doesn't it? I'd better see this in the Super POM rather  
embedded

>> in a JAR.
>
> ??? "embedded in a JAR"? what did I say that lead to something like  
this?


I assumed that your idea is rather nothing this up to the Super POM:
./maven-model-builder/src/main/resources/org/apache/maven/model/pom-4.0.0.xm
the super pom is in Maven: anything in Maven won't change that default  
will be

dependent on Maven version used, which is not good for reproducibility

[...]


>> Do you know completely reject the issue to be merged?
>
> I'd like to have us understand each other:
> - what do you expect to win?
> - what do we loose?
> I know doing this update is easy to do and corresponds to a lot of  
good

> intentions on giving latest of everything for lazy users: but the
> consequences are IMHO not so positive and are for the moment
> misunderstood/ignored My position is not definitive, the discussion on
> evaluating with multiple many eyes if this change is really good or  
not,
> and goot at what, will make my final opinion on this: but sure, for  
the

> moment, I'm not convinced this update goes in a good direction

It wasn't easy. I invested quite some time to make all ITs pass.
yes, changing the versions in Maven is easy, but updating ITs and  
checking
that everything works better is harder: once again, I don't see the  
value to
updating these default values, since people should define their own  
plugins
versions in their pom. But I see value of having the same plugins  
versions in

every Maven 3.x release, to have some de-facto reproducibility.


Some
plugins weren't even updated because they cause regressions in ITs which
I still haven't investigated yet. Some even cause zlib failures in
native code (known JVM issue due to bad code).

uh!

Regards,

Hervé



>> Michael
>>
>>> Le jeudi 11 mai 2017, 22:30:43 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :
 Who seconds MNG-6169 for 3.5.1? I have a fully working branch
 (MNG-6169_2/not-updated-MJAR-MCOMPILER) passing all ITs on Windows  
10

 and FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE.

 Jenkins build is flaky with notorious file://target/null artifact  
not

 found.

 Some bindings haven't been updated because they cause several ITs  
to

 fail (regressions). I will report them separately.


 Michael

  
-

 To unsubscribe, e-mail: 

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Hervé BOUTEMY]

Le samedi 13 mai 2017, 00:58:45 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :
> Am 2017-05-13 um 00:30 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
> > Le vendredi 12 mai 2017, 13:50:37 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :
> >> Am 2017-05-12 um 08:25 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
> >>> Jenkins build is not flaky: it is strict on dependency resolution from
> >>> cache, which is an intent, not a bug
> >> 
> >> This pretty much explains why a lot of ITs fail here at work with a
> >> empty repo. I will to work this through.
> > 
> > beware to not make the ITs fail with previous Maven versions
> 
> All I did is this:
> https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/commit/5c01864e44c7c96ca
> c95545e8568acd044b6d7dc
ok, just tested with Maven 3.0.5: this does not add more failures (notice that 
existing failures show we already did some mistakes in the past regarding some 
updated ITs...)

> >>> that's why I don't like changing default plugins versions:
> >>> 
> >>> 1. depending on default plugins versions is a bad practice: IMHO, having
> >>> old plugins helps people know that they should not rely on it
> >> 
> >> This basically means that people would need to provide versions
> >> explicitly in the POMs starting with Maven 4.
> > 
> > ??? Why are you talking about Maven 4?
> 
> If you are saying that depending on default version is a bad practice it
> actually means to me that this should change in the new major. Shouldn't it?
this is a bad practice from a very long time, even in the Maven 2.x time: what 
should change more in next Maven version that would show it more, without 
breaking the magic that these defaults are used to? A warning message 
proposing to add pluginManagement corresponding to current Maven version used? 
Or propose a parent pom to add?

> >> Looks like a lot of
> >> hassle, doesn't it? I'd better see this in the Super POM rather embedded
> >> in a JAR.
> > 
> > ??? "embedded in a JAR"? what did I say that lead to something like this?
> 
> I assumed that your idea is rather nothing this up to the Super POM:
> ./maven-model-builder/src/main/resources/org/apache/maven/model/pom-4.0.0.xm
the super pom is in Maven: anything in Maven won't change that default will be 
dependent on Maven version used, which is not good for reproducibility

[...]

> >> Do you know completely reject the issue to be merged?
> > 
> > I'd like to have us understand each other:
> > - what do you expect to win?
> > - what do we loose?
> > I know doing this update is easy to do and corresponds to a lot of good
> > intentions on giving latest of everything for lazy users: but the
> > consequences are IMHO not so positive and are for the moment
> > misunderstood/ignored My position is not definitive, the discussion on
> > evaluating with multiple many eyes if this change is really good or not,
> > and goot at what, will make my final opinion on this: but sure, for the
> > moment, I'm not convinced this update goes in a good direction
> 
> It wasn't easy. I invested quite some time to make all ITs pass.
yes, changing the versions in Maven is easy, but updating ITs and checking 
that everything works better is harder: once again, I don't see the value to 
updating these default values, since people should define their own plugins 
versions in their pom. But I see value of having the same plugins versions in 
every Maven 3.x release, to have some de-facto reproducibility.

> Some
> plugins weren't even updated because they cause regressions in ITs which
> I still haven't investigated yet. Some even cause zlib failures in
> native code (known JVM issue due to bad code).
uh!

Regards,

Hervé

> 
> >> Michael
> >> 
> >>> Le jeudi 11 mai 2017, 22:30:43 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :
>  Who seconds MNG-6169 for 3.5.1? I have a fully working branch
>  (MNG-6169_2/not-updated-MJAR-MCOMPILER) passing all ITs on Windows 10
>  and FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE.
>  
>  Jenkins build is flaky with notorious file://target/null artifact not
>  found.
>  
>  Some bindings haven't been updated because they cause several ITs to
>  fail (regressions). I will report them separately.
>  
>  
>  Michael
>  
>  -
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
>  For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >>> 
> >>> -
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >> 
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> > 
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> 
> 

Silly Saturday idea - If Maven Central were a bunch of Git repos

[Paul Hammant]

I was discussing this of the list today, and it may interest people on dev@

https://paulhammant.com/2017/05/13/maven-central-as-multiple-git-repos/

 "Maven Central as multiple Git repositories"

Enjoy,

- Paul

Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

[Martin Gainty]

Good Morning Michael


any timeline on pom.xml creation for tomcat source distros?

i d/l 8.5.4

https://archive.apache.org/dist/tomcat/tomcat-8/v8.5.4/src/

and i see only 1 pom.xml for jdbc-pool


but I see 3 build.xml

find . name build.xml

./modules/jdbc-pool/build.xml
./res/deployer/build.xml
./webapps/ROOT/build.xml


for each attempt to track down a TC problem i am forced to create pom.xml from 
scratch

so I can build, package and deploy the war to locate the problem


I of course will help you *behind the scenes* for any assistance you may require


thanks,

Martin
__

"why do you help the british?..in 1812 they burned your capitol"..The Great 
Escape



From: Michael Osipov 
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 6:58 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates

Am 2017-05-13 um 00:30 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
> Le vendredi 12 mai 2017, 13:50:37 CEST Michael Osipov a écrit :
>> Am 2017-05-12 um 08:25 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY:
>>> Jenkins build is not flaky: it is strict on dependency resolution from
>>> cache, which is an intent, not a bug
>>
>> This pretty much explains why a lot of ITs fail here at work with a
>> empty repo. I will to work this through.
> beware to not make the ITs fail with previous Maven versions

All I did is this:
https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/commit/5c01864e44c7c96cac95545e8568acd044b6d7dc
[https://avatars3.githubusercontent.com/u/573017?v=3=200]

[MNG-6169] Lifecycle/binding plugin version updates · 
apache/maven-integration-testing@5c01864
github.com
MNG-5895 and MNG-6090 with ArtifactResolutionException. Add dependencies Maven 
Resources Plugin 3.0.2 and Maven Surefire 2.2.0 to bootstrap's group 7.





>>
>>> that's why I don't like changing default plugins versions:
>>>
>>> 1. depending on default plugins versions is a bad practice: IMHO, having
>>> old plugins helps people know that they should not rely on it
>>
>> This basically means that people would need to provide versions
>> explicitly in the POMs starting with Maven 4.
> ??? Why are you talking about Maven 4?

If you are saying that depending on default version is a bad practice it
actually means to me that this should change in the new major. Shouldn't it?

>> Looks like a lot of
>> hassle, doesn't it? I'd better see this in the Super POM rather embedded
>> in a JAR.
> ??? "embedded in a JAR"? what did I say that lead to something like this?

I assumed that your idea is rather nothing this up to the Super POM:
./maven-model-builder/src/main/resources/org/apache/maven/model/pom-4.0.0.xml

>>> 2. people who do a "dependency:go-offline" with a previous Maven version
>>> but run offline with updated Maven version will see their build fail and
>>> report about dependency:go-offline not being reliable, which is
>>> technically not true, but is sensitive to Maven version (something that
>>> is hard to explain)
>>
>> Pretty good point. We should actually ad this information to the goal
>> doc. This will also fail if your change your POM.
>>
>>> On the first objection, it's a question of choice on how to promote the
>>> good practice about explicitely choosing your plugins versions
>>>
>>> On the second objection, I had an idea of Maven core improvement that
>>> would fix the go-offline dependency on Maven version used: what if Maven
>>> core distribution did contain a (read-only) local repo with default
>>> plugins already resolved?
>>>
>>> With such a feature, go-offline would not be dependant on Maven version
>>> used (starting from the Maven version that has this pre-built repo). And
>>> user would better see the default dependencies by looking at this
>>> pre-builot repo = something I'm sure they will do (but they don't have a
>>> look at lifecycle definition files, which are opaque for them)
>>>
>>> I didn't have time to work on implementing this idea, I suppose this would
>>> just require a new default repository with file://${maven.home}/default-
>>> plugins/ url, and to fill this repo at build time with appropriate
>>> go-offline
>> Sounds like a good idea but would produce a lot of bloat, wouldn't it?
> what do you call "bloat"? and what do you call "a lot"? Is it better to
> download plugin artifacts from network instead?
>
>> All plugin dependency trees. This should be configurable in settings.xml
>> and MDEP should provide a goal to populate such a repo.
>> I am afraid that no one will pick this up anytime soon.
>>
>> Do you know completely reject the issue to be merged?
> I'd like to have us understand each other:
> - what do you expect to win?
> - what do we loose?
> I know doing this update is easy to do and corresponds to a lot of good
> intentions on