Stephan, that sounds like fun… :) Domi On 18.05.2012, at 11:53, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> It is to do with a tighter coupling of the plugin code with core. > > Personally on any Jenkins instance that I control I always disable the > plugin as IMHO the Maven project type causes more problems than its > worth, and by disabling the plugin nobody can create such jobs. My > preference is a FreeStyle build with a Maven build step. > > Of course this PoV causes much healthy debate between KK & myself, but > it's all good fun ;-) > > One of these days I will bash Sacha on the head and get him to agree > to give me time to write a proper Maven project type... something that > I have a feeling of in my head, but that nobody has managed to do > yet... it will be frickin awesome... though I do have to fight of KK > petitioning Sacha to let me write the coverage plugin first ;-) > > -Stephen > > On 18 May 2012 10:36, nicolas de loof <nicolas.del...@gmail.com> wrote: >> afaik this is mostly for legacy reasons : >> >> maven project type was introduced as a core feature, and is still not >> strictly isolated in a plugin, so it is packaged as a core plugin and must >> be released with core >> >> not sure there is work in progress to get it better separated from core and >> become a "classic" plugin >> >> >> 2012/5/18 Ian Kemp <ian.k...@gmail.com> >>> >>> Pretty much as the title says. I'm guessing because the "plugin" is >>> actually a project type? >> >>
