>If you start having multiples you mess up consumers as explained cause the >resolution looks random and unexpected for lib writers.
Romain, please provide technical justification. What I suggest is an incremental feature that 1) Keeps the same behavior for the old-style projects 2) Enables **publishers** to make consumers' cases easier 3) The similar feature is adopted by well-known tools in the industry (junit, jackson since 2.12.0 released in 2020) It is not fair to say "you mess up consumers as explained". You have never provided even a single example where the added feature would "mess up consumers". >Still not, you propose to break most users and make the lib writer life a >nightmare in practise. Hey Romain, it is you who say "break users". At the same time you provide no examples of the way their projects will break. I do care about backward compatibility for existing projects, and my suggestion does not break the apps. It might be you confuse the threads >How would you solve the fact two libs using the same transitive lib use >different strategies? Romain, are you sure this reply belongs to "Honor dependencyManagement in intermediate POMs" thread? Frankly, I have never suggested "per lib strategy" or "per artifact strategy" here. I suggest that Maven should honour <dependencyManagement> in transitive POMs. Vladimir
