Yep. I'll probably take a stab at that while I try and turn this into an
RFC / specification. Is there anything specific you think we could be

 ("an" because RFC is pronounced Or Eff See, which starts with a vowel)

On Saturday 15 October 2016, Robert Scholte <> wrote:

> We should have a look at the MNG jira issues for those marked for Maven 4
> too
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 15:20:40 +0200, Stephen Connolly <
>> wrote:
> So now that I have a spec for the PDTs drafted, I have been thinking of
>> how that could influence Maven 5. Some things that came to mind, in no
>> particular order:
>> * scope becomes a build time only concern. Thus we can let users define
>> custom scopes in their pom. If we let plugin executions declare scopes to
>> resolve, we no longer need a compiler:testCompile goal as you can just have
>> a second default execution of compiler:compile with different required
>> scopes and different default configuration... bonus win, I can now add many
>> different layers of test-compilation for integration tests, etc... each
>> pulling in different scopes... ditto for surefire/failsafe... yeah
>> integration tests
>> * we should let the user define lifecycles directly in the Pom (ok, maybe
>> we don't *encourage it*)
>> * mixins can be properly considered... they only affect build time anyway
>> * Pom doesn't need to be XML any more... (maybe we want to keep XML
>> though... just a less verbose form)
>> * does Maven 5 build Maven 2/3 projects?
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Sent from my phone

Reply via email to