2013/6/16 Robert Scholte <codeh...@sourcegrounds.com>: > Hi, > > The prerequisites are not inherited, so defining it in the parent has no > effect. > Also, if you try, some plugins will already scream that you the Maven > version you're trying to use is too old. > > Keep in mind that building and using a plugin are 2 different things: > To build it, you need at least Maven-2.2.1, which means you need to use > JDK5. > However, the plugin itself can still be compiled with JDK1.4 making it > useful for ancient systems. (although I'm not sure if we have such plugins). > In such case it is up to the plugin maintainer to define the prerequisite, > so I understand why it is not inherited from the mojo-parent. > > In April we had our last release of the mojo-parent, so that's not too long > ago. (see history[1]) > If there are some interesting updates, go ahead. > I know we had a problem with m-compiler-p 3.x, because it is a bit too > aggressive. > ? Not sure we have the issue here. (problem limited to a particular use case see: https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MCOMPILER-205 )
> What we should do, is confirm that every plugin defined in the parent should > be Maven-3.1+ proof. > I'm doing some final things on the maven-enforcer-plugin, so that one could > be included as well. > > Robert > > > [1] > http://search.maven.org/#search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.codehaus.mojo%22%20AND%20a%3A%22mojo-parent%22 > > > On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 11:34:09 +0200, Baptiste MATHUS <bmat...@batmat.net> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I just had a look at the pom & pluginMgmt declaration to see what could be >> upgraded. Sorry if this is obvious information, I'm crawled the archive a >> bit without finding the information. >> >> *What's the current agreement about the minimum Maven version we would >> >> agree to support (I mean "by default", since it'd be overridable in some >> particular situations)?* >> >> Would this be ok to* add the <prerequisites> tag with Maven 2.2.1 tag* to >> >> the mojo-parent pom? >> >> My take on it is: defining m2.2.1 as the minimum is very reasonnable, as >> we >> anyway already have some minimum requirement about jdk1.5 in the pom >> (which >> 2.2.1 requires) and as that version is already almost 4 years old. >> >> And then, if we agree at least on some 2.2.1 minimum, I'd then propose >> upgrading plugins to their latest versions, as of: >> [INFO] --- versions-maven-plugin:2.1:display-plugin-updates (default-cli) >> @ >> mojo-parent --- >> [INFO] >> [INFO] The following plugin updates are available: >> [INFO] maven-checkstyle-plugin ............................... 2.9.1 -> >> 2.10 >> [INFO] maven-compiler-plugin .................................. 2.5.1 -> >> 3.1 >> [INFO] maven-dependency-plugin .................................. 2.6 -> >> 2.8 >> [INFO] maven-pmd-plugin ..................................... 2.7.1 -> >> 3.0.1 >> [INFO] maven-project-info-reports-plugin ........................ 2.6 -> >> 2.7 >> [INFO] maven-release-plugin ................................... 2.4 -> >> 2.4.1 >> [INFO] maven-site-plugin ........................................ 3.2 -> >> 3.3 >> [INFO] maven-surefire-plugin .................................. 2.13 -> >> 2.15 >> [INFO] maven-surefire-report-plugin ........................... 2.13 -> >> 2.15 >> [INFO] org.codehaus.mojo:license-maven-plugin ................... 1.4 -> >> 1.5 >> [INFO] org.codehaus.mojo:versions-maven-plugin ................ 1.3.1 -> >> 2.1 >> >> Based on that discussion, I'll see if I should start some vote about it. >> >> Thanks for your opinion. >> > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > -- Olivier Lamy Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
