Unfortunately there is a lot of that in Pax, for sure. I currently have the tendency to remove those cross cutting dependencies in default "transitive" artifacts users use. For example, in Pax Exam there is no direct Pax Runner transitive dependency anymore. Sure, A component compiles against a known version, but the user has to add a matching pax runner artifact himself. Same for Pax URL, whose "API" is probably the most stable across all pax projects (URL only).
All in all, yes, new issue type. +1. But think we should try to reduce the (dependency-) tail. On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: > I concur. There are a lot of this in Pax. > > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 6:05 AM, Andreas Pieber <anpie...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hey, > > > > Since we make heavy use of the JIRA changelog and should also record > > dependency upgrades it would definitely help/make it clearer if we > > introduce a new, own issue type for this action. I'm using this on > > various projects and I'm quite happy with this notation. WDYT? > > > > Kind regards, > > Andreas > > > > _______________________________________________ > > general mailing list > > general@lists.ops4j.org > > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > > > > > > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java > > I live here; http://tinyurl.com/3xugrbk > I work here; http://tinyurl.com/24svnvk > I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > general@lists.ops4j.org > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > -- Toni Menzel Source <http://tonimenzel.com>
_______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
