Can't tackle it before next year but if not done in january sure.
2017-11-06 10:00 GMT+01:00 Stephen Connolly <[email protected]>: > FYI this seems something that doesnt need to wait for 4.0.0 > > If there was a PR for this and enough other small changes I'd be happy to > roll a 3.5.3 > > Do you want to take a stab at it? > > (only complexity might be parallel execution, but we could just report the > linear plan number and when in parallel also log how many have completed) > > On 6 November 2017 at 00:51, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> indeed: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6302 >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn >> >> >> 2017-11-06 9:37 GMT+01:00 Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.connolly@gmail. >> com>: >> > On Mon 6 Nov 2017 at 08:13, Romain Manni-Bucau <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Forgot a user wish feature: some progress logging somehow. On "big" >> project >> >> (actually on project logging a lot) you are easily lost on the progress, >> >> you know current module is X but you don't know anymore if it is 50% of >> the >> >> build or 5%. Having at least "module X / Y" would be helpful. IMO it is >> >> enough to log it with the module name: >> >> >> >> [INFO] >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> ------------ >> >> [INFO] Building Foo 1.0.0-SNAPSHOT >> >> [INFO] >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> ------------ >> >> [INFO] Module 10 / 100 >> >> >> > >> > Can you file a JIRA? >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog >> >> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog >> >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < >> >> https://github.com/rmannibucau> | >> >> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> >> >> >> >> 2017-11-05 22:27 GMT+01:00 Bernd Eckenfels <[email protected]>: >> >> >> >> > Hello, >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Adding annotations and processor as a compiletime dependency sounds >> like >> >> a >> >> > reasonable thing. It would however be cool if the JAR could describe >> >> which >> >> > package needs to go on the classpath and which is processor impl. (and >> >> > having a different artifact for runtime) >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Gruss >> >> > >> >> > Bernd >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > *Von: *Mark Derricutt <[email protected]> >> >> > *Gesendet: *Sonntag, 5. November 2017 22:20 >> >> > *An: *Maven Developers List <[email protected]> >> >> > *Betreff: *Re: Maven 4.0.0 >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On 5 Nov 2017, at 10:42, Robert Scholte wrote: >> >> > >> >> > I would like to drop strict scopes in general and give plugins the >> >> > opportunity to depend on >> >> > specific scoped dependencies. >> >> > >> >> > How would this help with annotations tho? The main issue I'm facing is >> >> > having a standard m-c-p plugin definition in a parent ( or tile ) but >> >> > needing different annotation processors used per project. With the >> >> current >> >> > plugin, this means either listing them as standard dependencies and >> have >> >> > them auto-scanned, and pollute the compilation classpath, or list >> every >> >> > possible annotation processor dependency we may use in our projects in >> >> the >> >> > parent, which is less than ideal. >> >> > >> >> > I hope you are aware that modules already end up on the modulepath >> based >> >> > on the moduledescriptor(s). So I don't see the need for this scope. >> >> (unless >> >> > you have this wish that in the end Maven will create the module >> >> descriptor >> >> > based on this, but I still think we shouldn't do that) >> >> > >> >> > I remembered reading something about this, and assumed it was the >> case if >> >> > there was a module-info.class, but what if its a standard jar with an >> >> > Automatic-Module-Name header? Does that fall into the module path or >> >> > classpath? Having control for this case may be useful. >> >> > >> >> > I recognize this wish. The best solution is to make the dependency >> >> > optional. >> >> > >> >> > The problem with this is that the dependency is still on the classpath >> >> for >> >> > say surefire, which can influence behaviour. >> >> > >> >> > Mark >> >> > >> >> > "The ease with which a change can be implemented has no relevance at >> all >> >> > to whether it is the right change for the (Java) Platform for all >> time." >> >> — >> >> > Mark Reinhold. >> >> > >> >> > Mark Derricutt >> >> > http://www.theoryinpractice.net >> >> > http://www.chaliceofblood.net >> >> > http://plus.google.com/+MarkDerricutt >> >> > http://twitter.com/talios >> >> > http://facebook.com/mderricutt >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > >> >> >> > -- >> > Sent from my phone >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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]
