Am 28.07.2016 um 19:18 schrieb Jason van Zyl:
I’m a vehement -1 to changing the artifactIds or structure without a plan.
+1
If something does not need to be renamed, then don't rename it. If
something needs to be renamed, don't choose some kind of trademarkish
name no-one knows what it stands for but something self-describing as
much as possible.
We have to change the groupId because we cannot deploy into Eclipse’s namespace
but for anyone using this code just leave it how it is while making
improvements.
+1
The library as it stands functions and people are using it. We have something
in Maven core that uses it and it’s pretty terrible but it’s a great place to
start trying to flesh out something new because the ITs will catch most things.
We have recently discussed the addition of some kind of feature
toggles/switches/knobs and haven't come to a conclusion yet. I would
like to make the following proposal:
Rename the branch 'maven-3.x-next' to 'maven-next'. Use the model
version to decide about how Maven should behave when it comes to a
change in behaviour between a previous model version and the next model
version. Update the model version right now to the next model version on
that 'maven-next' branch so things can get going there (setup Jenkins
and things like that e.g.) All I need to know for this is what is the
model version we will be using in that 'maven-next' branch today. Is it
a minor version increment (4.1) or a major one (5.0). The reason I would
like to use the model version instead of some kind of feature toggle is
to be able to deploy to central or somewhere else. So that Maven can
detect how to behave also for POMs it downloads from the repositories
instead of relying on some command line option.
Regards,
--
Christian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
