If my choice was 2.0.6 without this or call it 2.1 with it, then I say call it 2.1. This move should imply an end to 2.0 releases though because the last thing we need is 3 active releases.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Carlos Sanchez Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:47 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: [vote] MNG-1577 as the default behavior it's not unpredictable at all, it is pretty clear that to force a version in a project you need to add it in your pom and dependencyManagement doesn't affect transitive dependencies, it's in the documentation, and even in the jira issue Brett says that it was done on purpose. http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-dependency-m echanism.html now poms in the repo that have dependencyManagement sections will start to change the behavior of current builds and people with 2.0.5 will get very different results than people with 2.0.6 which i don't think it's acceptable for 2.0.x I'm not against the fix, and I wouldn't really care if this is shipped next week as 2.1 and current 2.1 is moved to 2.2, or even better get 2.1 alpha now with this fix (+100!) On 3/16/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 16 Mar 07, at 1:35 PM 16 Mar 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote: > > > I agree with Brett, this is a 2.1 change, not a 2.0.x > > > > Do you fully understand what the current behavior is and what this > patch fixes? You are essentially condemning users to complete > unpredictability. I really think that a build should be staged and > explain to users what the change is and let people build with it. If > we don't get enough feedback or there is a consensus that they think > it's not good then we don't put it in. But we already have many users > who are suffering and asking for this to be the default behavior. > > Jason. > > > Now as Jochen says, nothing prevents pushing stuff from 2.1 to 2.2 > > and get an earlier 2.1, i though we were going to do it anyway. > > > > > > On 3/16/07, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On 3/16/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > Our users must be able to trust point releases are safe upgrades. > >> > Let's start moving on putting out 2.1 milestone releases instead. > >> > >> Agreed. On the other hand, most others seem to consider this change > >> important. > >> > >> So, why not simply renaming 2.0.6 to 2.1 and 2.1 to 2.2? Should > >> satisfy all. > >> > >> Jochen > >> > >> -- > >> Emacs 22 will support MacOS and CygWin. It is not yet decided, > >> whether these will be used to run Emacs or the other way round. > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > >> additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > I could give you my word as a Spaniard. > > No good. I've known too many Spaniards. > > -- The Princess Bride > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- I could give you my word as a Spaniard. No good. I've known too many Spaniards. -- The Princess Bride --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
