desruisseaux commented on PR #11639: URL: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/11639#issuecomment-3810126358
> once again, we did drop it and had to revert it so it is not a risk but a bug. The reasons why it was reverted are not necessarily valid anymore. If the reason was Javadoc and annotation dependencies, it was a valid reason in Maven 3 but is not valid anymore with the new model since those dependencies are no longer in the `<build>` element. > it is totally, the topic is "what do we want to keep in consumer pom" There are two separated discussions: `<build>` and `<dependencies>`. For the latter, the answer is no dependency at all in the parent POM of a multi-modules project. For this pull request, that's all. For a discussion about the selection of dependencies in child POM, this is a topic for the proposed `maven-jar-plugin` 4.x, not for this pull request. > Think it is just your niche/JPMS case but far to be mainstream today so will not cover much sadly, so not a global solution. I know that you dislike JPMS. But this pull request has no impact on non-JPMS users. Keeping `<build>` for JPMS users is an unnecessary risk. Risky because `<build>` amputated from its `<sources>` is misleading, and it is much more difficult to fix something wrong in the future than filling a hole. Unnecessary because above discussion did not gave a single example of an information located in `<build>`, only a vague "we had to revert" in a context that is probably not valid anymore. Again, please keep in mind that this pull request applies only to projects that use Module Source Hierarchy. If you do not like JPMS, you are not impacted. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
