Can we please specify what use case we're hoping to ease by changing our provided status for e.g. hadoop-client?
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Keith Turner <[email protected]> wrote: > Dropping provided sounds good. Seems like it would make users poms > simpler. > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What's the latest opinion whether things should be marked "provided" in > > the pom? > > I've changed my mind on this a few times, myself, so I'm curious what > > others think. > > > > The provided scope means that it will not propagate as a transitive > > dependency. Other than that, it doesn't do much... though we can > > control packaging based on provided or not. > > > > I'm not sure this gets us much, and it's inconvenient for users. We > > can control packaging in other ways (like being more explicit and > > carefully considering which dependencies we include in an RPM or > > tarball, for instance). > > > > If we drop its declaration, what this means, is that if users want to > > build with Accumulo as a dependency, but against a different version > > of Hadoop than what we declare in our POM, they'll have to explicitly > > <exclude> the hadoop dependencies, and redeclare them, or they will > > have to use their <dependencyManagement> section to force a particular > > dependency of hadoop. > > > > The advantage to users, though, if we drop this, is that they won't > > have to constantly re-declare transitive dependencies to get their > > projects to build/test/run. > > > > See http://s.apache.org/maven-dependency-scopes > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -- > > Christopher L Tubbs II > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > -- Sean
