gnodet commented on PR #12069:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/12069#issuecomment-4724214947

   Thanks for working on this! A few thoughts after reviewing:
   
   **The underlying issue is real** — `mvn site` failing on multi-module 
projects with inter-module dependencies is a pain point, and requiring `mvn 
compile site` is not great UX.
   
   However, I have some concerns about the approach:
   
   **Silent failures for common configurations:** The PR injects empty JARs 
into the reactor when a site goal is detected. This works fine for basic site 
generation (project-info-reports, etc.), but many projects have Javadoc, JXR, 
SpotBugs, or other reports enabled in their POM that inspect actual bytecode or 
source paths resolved from the classpath. With this change, those reports would 
silently produce empty/incomplete output instead of failing with a clear error. 
Today the failure is explicit — you know you need `mvn compile site`. With the 
empty JAR workaround, it passes but the output is wrong.
   
   **Scope of the change:** Patching `ReactorReader` (a low-level artifact 
resolution component) with site-specific logic feels like the wrong layer. The 
site goal detection via hardcoded strings (`pre-site`, `post-site`, `:site`, 
etc.) is fragile and couples artifact resolution to lifecycle knowledge it 
shouldn't have.
   
   **Possible alternative:** Would it be better to address this at the 
lifecycle/phase level — e.g., having the site lifecycle declare a dependency on 
the compile phase, or handling this in the site plugin itself?
   
   This feels more like a feature/enhancement than a bug fix, and probably not 
a candidate for rc-6. What do you think?


-- 
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]

Reply via email to