Actually, that's not exactly true. I have already put POM v4 stuff in CVS. However, it's completely transparent to POM3 users and I do agree that we must provide 100% POM3 compatibility for 1.0.
Here's what I would like to do. Please provide input on whether you think it's acceptable or not. 1/ Continue to add the <compatibilities> stuff in POM4's XSD file and in the marshaller/unmarshaller 2/ All plugins should stay compatible with POM3 for now. In the multichanges plugin, I'd like to add a feature: create an href link to the plugin distributable files. I will need to use the new <type> element, available only in POM4. Thus the multichanges plugin will not have links when projects are using POM3 and will have links if projects are using POM4. In this manner it remains completely compatible with POM3 while providing additional features for POM4. This should be a rule that all plugins need to be friendly with POM3. 3/ The website xdoc reference guide needs to be revisited to explain POM3/POM4 and explain the differences. We have 2 options: - one menu item for POM3 and another one for POM4 - a single page for both POMs but explaining the differences where the 2 POMs diverge. I think I'd prefer the first option. It should clearly be stated that POM3 is currently the officially released POM and that Maven 1.0 is 100% compatible with it. 4/ I've created a wiki page to describe the differences between POM3's XSD and POM4's XSD: http://wiki.codehaus.org/maven/Pom4vsPom3 Comments? Thanks -Vincent > -----Original Message----- > From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 18 November 2003 22:55 > To: 'Maven Developers List' > Subject: RE: [VOTE] Make groupId mandatory for POM version 4? > > My understanding is 1.1, as to my knowledge there has been no handling put > into CVS yet. > > We must retain full v3 compatibility for 1.0 at the very least. > > Cheers, > Brett > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, 19 November 2003 3:18 AM > > To: Maven Developers List > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Make groupId mandatory for POM version 4? > > > > > > Is POM v4 a 1.0, 1.1, or 2.x change? > > -- > > dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting > > Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/ > > > > > > > > Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 14/11/2003 08:05:30 AM: > > > > > On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 15:57, Vincent Massol wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I'd like to make <groupId> a mandatory element in POM version 4. > > > > What > > do > > > > you think? The reason is that I don't what the default can be if > > > > it's not specified and if we want to have plugins that > > start using > > > > the id/groupId/type elements, there must be a groupId defined. > > > > > > > > Here's my +1 > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > -Vincent > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > - > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > > > jvz. > > > > > > Jason van Zyl > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://tambora.zenplex.org > > > > > > In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and > > > technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. > > > > > > -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
