phases are about the user calling out how far they want to go, not about sequencing... at least once we get a propper execution graph
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 13:54, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Currently maven can't but I expect a way to do it, either in the next xsd > as originally proposed or, why not, with a naming convention in the id of > the execution (<execution>my-exec#after#other-exec</execution> or something > like that if we want it before maven 4) > > The nice thing is that once done it makes phases pretty much useless (it is > just about making implicit these dependencies) and it makes the whole build > parallelizable and not just modules which will often find some bottleneck > modules in projects building a distribution. > > 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> | Book > < > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > > > > > Le jeu. 6 déc. 2018 à 14:44, Mickael Istria <mist...@redhat.com> a écrit : > > > Hi, > > > > > any way we move that topic forward beginning of next year? > > > > I guess providing patches would be the best way ;) > > > > I'm coming late in this discussion and I'm a newcomer on that list, so I > > could miss context. This could relate to an effort we are doing in > Eclipse > > IDE (and Eclipse m2e) to run module builds in parallel. One question I > have > > is how do you know 2 tasks aren't conflicting? We didn't figure out a > safe > > way to know that in m2e, maybe I missed something? > > > > Cheers, > > >
