Maybe but your example still relies on your wrong assumption Vladimir so first answer is still accurate, you look on the wrong side
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://x.com/rmannibucau> | .NET Blog <https://dotnetbirdie.github.io/> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.github.io/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/java-ee-8-high-performance-9781788473064> Javaccino founder (Java/.NET service - contact via linkedin) Le jeu. 6 nov. 2025 à 14:35, Vladimir Sitnikov <[email protected]> a écrit : > >it is in the first messages, just read answered you get > > The answer can't be in the first messages. There you attacked a wrong > example which I later improved to avoid other Maven's traps. > I published an updated sample on 16 Oct with "Let me please reiterate the > issue with a clearer, minor-version example" message: > https://lists.apache.org/thread/q0bn38qtxkv4orx6o9lhtonjcxkbtw5f > > None of your 11 messages since then explain the proposal is not relevant, > and > none of your 11 messages explain why the proposal breaks things. > > If you still think I missed it, please pin-point the exact message(s): > https://lists.apache.org/thread/q0bn38qtxkv4orx6o9lhtonjcxkbtw5f > > Vladimir >
