Is the consumer POM useful only for packaging=jar?
Because which other packagings use to have transitive dependencies as well?

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 8:36 PM, Tibor Digana <tibordig...@apache.org>
wrote:

> Why the column with build POM in table does not have all items green +?
> Why there are two consumer POM's? Some is old proposal and second is yours?
> Some consumer POMs may become BOM and there I would miss
> dependencyManagement.
>
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 6:03 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wrote a Proposal in the Wiki about Build vs Consumer POM [1] and coded a
>> simplified model for the Consumer POM [2]
>> As written in the proposal, this would permit us to create new POM
>> versions
>> that change everything but not the Consumer POM part without breaking any
>> compatibility with existing Central repository users: build element is the
>> main element that could be changed, adding new build
>> features/configuration
>> without affecting consumers.
>>
>> In addition to reviewing choices proposed for majority of POM elements,
>> there
>> are 4 elements that require more discussion:
>> - contributors
>> - mailingLists
>> - repositories
>> - profiles/activation
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> On the code, IMHO, the only missing part is a test of
>> flatten-maven-plugin to
>> check that everything works as expected in any situation.
>> And I suppose a discussion on what we do for the xsd
>>
>> Then we should be able to use this strategy for our own artifacts, before
>> updating POM model version in any newer Maven version starting with 3.6
>> (yay!)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Hervé
>>
>>
>> [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Build+vs+
>> Consumer+POM
>>
>> [2] http://maven.apache.org/studies/consumer-pom/maven-consumer.html
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to