On 11/03/18 22:37, Sander Verhagen wrote:
This is a great proposal, even in its current form. But as a long term Maven user,
I have a few modest questions and remarks, though. (Sorry if you didn't mean for non-developer to chime in...)

It's really good to hear from a Maven user. This is a public mailing list so no limitations we are an open source project and the community is important ...so we like to hear your ideas/opinions/questions etc...

It would probably good to mandate some sort of <modelVersion/> still, and to 
have a hint of a strategy in place for the versioning of the two schemas to diverge 
when (not if) needed.

From my perspective and conversations with Hervé and Robert I think it's clear to have a modelVersion for the consumer pom which in the end is the current pom without some parts and it will keep the modelVersion to let other tools etc. consume it correctly...

I'm a little sad that consumer POMs would be entirely flat. Isn't that a separate decision 
from having consumer POMs altogether? I feel that the parent hierarchy of 
<dependencies/> or <dependencyManagement/> may still be useful context when 
troubleshooting dependency issues involving these artifacts.

Hm...unsure...If we flatten that down you have a single comsumer pom which contains all dependencies which you could analyse and download all needed dependencies in a single go.....

Aren't <mailingLists/> useful for end users? Or at least, some of the 
<mailingLists/> of a project?

If we are talking about the consumer pom than they make sense (for human readers). The question is if we decide to handle it only for machine usage or not ?

Why is <profiles/> required for consumers? I'm not aware how profiles of a dependency 
ever play(ed) a role in my "dependent" project?

I can remember we had a discussion about that..my first reaction would be saying no profiles needed in a consumer pom...but I'm not 100% sure...we need to think that more in detail with different scenarios..

Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise

Sander Verhagen
[ san...@sanderverhagen.net (mailto:san...@sanderverhagen.net) ]

On Mar 11 2018, at 10:03 am, Hervé BOUTEMY <herve.bout...@free.fr> wrote:

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!)


[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

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Reply via email to