Mark Hobson wrote: > On 17/09/2007, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Actually I missed that. Mark, what's the problem with analyze forking >> the build if there is already a justAnalyze that doesn't? > > Okay, I like Max's suggestion of following the assembly plugin's > convention. I'll put dependency:analyze back to @execute > phase="test-compile" and add dependency:analyze-attached with > @phase="verfiy", which will replace the previous JustAnalyze mojo.
I think the convention really only goes as far as having two different names in order to allow @execute and [EMAIL PROTECTED] versions. "attached" makes sense for the assembly plugin, but for the dependency plugin, the distinction is not to do with attached artifacts, so the name is confusing. I think that "just-analyze" was a better name than "analyze-attached" - I don't see any advantages in changing, and there is the disadvantage of it being a compatibility break with any poms already using it. Max.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
