If you look at my suggested sample POM, you are able to define additions to the lifecycle for a specific project or for a mix-in *from the POM*... user is free to shoot their own foot off if they want to
On 20 October 2016 at 17:24, Andreas Sewe < [email protected]> wrote: > Stephen Connolly wrote: > > * we should let the user define lifecycles directly in the Pom (ok, > maybe we don't *encourage it*) > > More packaging-related phases in the default lifecycle. > > I very much like the idea of a standard lifecycle, as it often forces > you to rethink your project's structure. (me: "Why can't I have two > compile phases in the same build, on compiling the code generator and > one compiling the generated code?" Maven: "Because this is not Ant and > you really have two different projects." me: "Of course; makes much more > sense!"). > > Alas, the current default lifecycle doesn't cope well with builds that > need to selectively (profiles) sign and pack200 their artifacts. See [1] > for an example where the exact declaration order in the POM matters > (which it really shouldn't), just because there are no suitable phases > after "package". > > Best wishes, > > Andreas > > [1] <http://www.codetrails.com/blog/sign-your-eclipse-project> > > >
