On Monday, 13 January 2014, Benson Margulies wrote: > In XML Schema, these aren't 'comments', these are 'comment nodes' -- > > <documentation>This is not the type you are looking for</documentation> > > which is what I'm suggesting is reasonable,
Yep I agree... But it's out of scope for 3.2.0... Let's discuss in a few weeks when 3.2.0 is out the door and we are starting the 4.0.0 sprint as opposed to capturing > text from <!-- Ceçi n'est pas documentation. --> comments. If I've > missed something I'd be happy to be educated. > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org> > wrote: > > Dedicated comments nodes can be useful. For example, both XML Schema > format > > and the Spring Framework schemas allow dedicated comment nodes. I don't > have > > any opinion if dedicated comment nodes are useful for Maven POMs but I am > > willing to listen and learn. > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Stephen Connolly > > <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 13 January 2014 16:13, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > Why isn't this copied to the dev list? > >> > > >> > >> It was, check the headers > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > I don't see why http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3879 is even > >> > remotely under consideration. > >> > >> > >> I moved MNG-3879 to 4.0 backlog. > >> > >> Your action was to split out the second issue... should really live in > the > >> dependency plugin and depend on MNG-3879 > >> > >> > The second part is a goal that I would propose to call > 'dependency-map'. > >> This would produce a formatted map of the dependency tree – enriched, of > >> course, by the comments in the first part. > >> > >> > >> > >> > It is a proposal, to start with, to add > >> > an element to the POM: > >> > > >> > <dependency> > >> > <explanation>some text </explanation> > >> > ... > >> > </dependency> > >> > > >> > which would make it a job for 4.0. It was never my intention to > >> > propose to capture <!-- --> XML comments, that's evil in my view. > >> > > >> > So far, the feedback I've received is that the stuff I've written > >> > about POM evolution is crap. Fine, it's crap. > >> > >> > >> I don't think necessarily so... once 3.2.0 is out we will be looking at > >> model version 5.0.0 and pom evolution is on the cards. I like the idea > of > >> dedicated documentation nodes in the pom as otherwise it can be harder > to > >> maintain comments etc, when people use formatting tools etc. The great > >> thing with a descriptive text node is that everyone except tooling can > >> ignore it > >> > >> > >> > So JIRAs like this > >> > should just be closed down when they have my name on them. > >> > > >> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:24 AM, Stephen Connolly > >> > <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > I have added a wiki page summary of this discussion: > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Maven+3.2.0+Bug+Scrub > >> > > > >> > > Reminder, I pegged some action items against Benson, Olivier, > Kristian > >> > > & > >> > > Jason... See the action required section... mostly just status > >> > > updates. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On 7 January 2014 22:03, Stephen Connolly < > >> > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> I like "Nike" style issues (just commit it) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tuesday, 7 January 2014, Michael Osipov wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Am 2014-01-07 22:38, schrieb Stephen Connolly: > >> > >>>> > >> > >>>> Add it if you promise to implement it, otherwise put it against > >> > >>>> 3.2.x > >> > >>>> for > >> > >>>> the patch releases. > >> > >>> > -- Sent from my phone
