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 >> >> >
