On 25 November 2013 20:32, Stephen Connolly
<stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> be able to generate a pom for 4.0.0 clients that contains some of the
> bug/features that some people seem to rely on, e.g. ${} expansion in
> <dependencies>... but we don't need to maintain such guarantees when we
> have a new schema.If there is a better way, then we should promote that and stop the broken way. > * There are valid cases where a parent pom can include a set of > dependencies that are common to all child projects. It may not be a style > that I like, but just as I am not going to give out if somebody writes > their *project* and has the idiotic idea of using TABs to indent (I'll moan > if I have to make a contribution to their project though) I do not think we > should prevent such a use case. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, > there can be side artifacts for a pom packaging. Thus we really should be > publishing a .dml file for the parent. Most likely it will be empty (we > don't need <dependencyManagement> because .dml files *never* include a > parent reference) but the file is needed for any side-artifacts I think this is an area of confusion. There is a difference between a parent pom and a dependency inheritance pom. Too many times I've seen the parent pom have something "common" only to find out its not common in this grand-child over here. As above, If there is a better way we should be promoting that and stopping the broken way. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
