Thanks davidB for pointing!

On 24/10/09 9:19 PM, David Bernard wrote:
>
> Not setting version of plugin :
> * create un-reproductible build (over time and developer configuration).

Just found this one too: 
http://www.mail-archive.com/d...@maven.apache.org/msg82398.html. I had no 
idea that the notion of RELEASE can be unsafe. Have seen this in quite a 
few OSS project for sure.

> * using le last release is not always a good idea (eg : the last 2
> version of maven-eclipse-plugin introduce regression).

Indeed, for odd plugins we might have to do this. But that won't have 
affected every other configuration. At least that was the plan.

As mentioned, I'll go ahead and add the version property for extensions 
and plugins.

BTW, what is the recommended version for maven-eclipse-plugin? I'll set 
that accordingly.

>
> /davidB
>
>
> On 2009-10-24, Indrajit Raychaudhuri<indraj...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>> Plugin and extension versions are optional in Maven pom. Not providing
>> the version has a small advantage - it defaults to RELEASE and pulls up
>> the latest release automatically.
>>
>> While it's possible that a plugin version would have backward incomplete
>> changes, in Lift we hardly do anything complicated to be affected
>> drastically. We could always 'pin' a version for the odd plugins that
>> were affected. Thus, I wanted to give that a go. This works well from
>> the CLI (typically what I use for build).
>>
>> The intent for tweaking the poms were primarily to:
>> - reduce the size of pom by discarding the optional/default settings
>> - remove redundant settings in multiple pom
>> - add some inline docu to stop one running away from a pom.xml
>> - contribute a little in making maven not 'download the internet'
>>
>> Too bad the IDEs are not co-operating! Thanks Kris/David for raising
>> this. I am going to add versions for all the plugins and extensions
>> tonight. Unstable pom.xml is the last thing we want (even if that means
>> redundant/optional settings make their way into the poms).
>>
>> Cheers, Indrajit
>>
>>
>> On 24/10/09 7:22 AM, Kris Nuttycombe wrote:
>>>
>>> I ran into that -it's a missing version number in the root pom. Fixed
>>> in my kjn-loc-wip branch if you just want to grab it from there.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 3:41 PM, David Pollak
>>> <feeder.of.the.be...@gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> Any idea why NetBeans doesn't like the new Lift pom structure?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net
>>>> Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890
>>>> Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp
>>>> Surf the harmonics
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>
> >

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to