2013/6/16 Robert Scholte <codeh...@sourcegrounds.com>
Hi,
The prerequisites are not inherited, so defining it in the parent has no
effect.
Interesting. I didn't know it. I don't use it often, you'll have noticed
;).
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.
But IIUC what you mean, sure you could define the prereq to 2.2.1 or even
3.x for some reason, and still define a java target as 1.4. Is that what
you meant?
If so, then no problem. My sole purpose here was about building.
In April we had our last release of the mojo-parent, so that's not too
long ago. (see history[1])
Yes, I released it ;). It was because of an issue with it btw, like the
kind of one we're now having with m3.1 :).
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.
Interesting. I'd be inclined to upgrade to 3.1, but I'll wait a bit more
with this information.
What we should do, is confirm that every plugin defined in the parent
should be Maven-3.1+ proof.
OK, just filed MOJO-1946 about this. I'm gonna commit offended plugin
upgrades one by one.
I'm doing some final things on the maven-enforcer-plugin, so that one
could be included as well.
No problem. I'm in no hurry at all about releasing mojo-parent. My point
was currently *only* about fixing the current trunk so that it's OK for
the
next time we release it.
Cheers.
Thanks for your answers.
Robert
[1] http://search.maven.org/#**search%7Cgav%7C1%7Cg%3A%22org.**
codehaus.mojo%22%20AND%20a%3A%**22mojo-parent%22<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<http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email>