2008/11/10 Paul Gier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Yes, you're right, I think this is getting more complicated that it needs > to be. > Either of these is fine with me: > default-lifecycle:goal
-1 > or > default-lifecycle:phase +1 > > Either of them should be pretty easy to implement, and pretty unlikely to > cause any new problems. If we just use default by itself, then we don't > resolve compile/testCompile or other similar situations. > > > Brian E. Fox wrote: > >> I think we've gone way off the rails here. I see there's a proposal but >> haven't reviewed it yet. >> >> The first portion of this discussion was rather small in scope: >> Currently default executions of plugins have a null id. The null is used >> to indicate the default config for a plugin across all executions AND is >> used for lifecycle bound or plugins run on the cli. I think we simply >> should start by separating this. Keep default to replace the current >> null values for the global plugin configuration as it applies across all >> executions. Then define an id for the lifecycle and cli invocations to >> be applied to tweak the values as needed (but keeping default to apply >> across all). Going beyond this into multifaceted ids for packages etc is >> far too complicated imo. >> >> >>
