Hey John, just to clear up the situation a bit. AFAIK the bom artifact (deltaspike/dist/bom/pom.xml) isn't actually a real bom as it defines all the modules as direct dependencies which is more a "depchain". The real pom is the parent (deltaspike/dist/pom.xml) as it defines the versions of the modules in a <dependencyManagement> section, correct?
Christian 2013/12/23 John D. Ament <[email protected]> > Romain, > > Right. My hope is that internally we can list the cross module > dependencies in one place. If we're going to prep docs on how a new > dev can bring deltaspike to their project, using a bom is a simple > tool. > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau > <[email protected]> wrote: > > +-0 while deltaspike doesnt use itself the bom (they lead too often to > dep > > issues in practise) > > Le 23 déc. 2013 02:09, "John D. Ament" <[email protected]> a écrit > : > > > >> Hi all > >> > >> Recently for the binary distribution task, I added a bom. I added > >> this because the parent pom includes our dependencies, as well as our > >> developer list. For someone importing the project to build against, I > >> figured this was a bad idea (we would show as developers in that > >> imported pom). However, this ended up adding some double entry. > >> > >> So I'd like to propose moving this bom up a few directories, and leave > >> this up as the only place to have the modules listed. Importing this > >> one into our parent. > >> > >> WDYT? > >> > >> John > >> > -- Christian Kaltepoth Blog: http://blog.kaltepoth.de/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/chkal GitHub: https://github.com/chkal
