2009/12/29 Brian Fox <bri...@infinity.nu> > I 100% agree that the pom format is likely the single biggest thing we > need to tackle in the future. What that means for future maven > versions is unclear since I agree that pom changes would justify a > major version bump although I don't think we want to talk about 4.x. > > well it would make more sense to call it 5.x and skip 4.x entirely since the model version is already at 4.0.0 ;-)
> However I definitely think that this version belongs as 3.x, there are > enough changes to justify it, and the fact that it's all new code > means we shouldn't hide it under 2.x. > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> > wrote: > > > > On Dec 29, 2009, at 8:28 AM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote: > > > >> > >> I agree. The problem will be in 3.1. We'll be able to remove things > >> deprecated in 3.0 but nothing more. > >> We'll have to see what we'll do if we have big changes. > >> For me the most important problem to work on (post 3.0), will be how we > >> manage different versions of POMs and metadata. This will have an > important > >> impact for our users. > >> > > > > What I recall discussing with Brian at ApacheCon was having a new project > descriptor but making sure that when projects are installed or deployed a > pom compatible with the current format would also be deployed along with the > new descriptor. If the new project descriptor allows extension then this > could continue to work as things change. > > > > Ralph > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
