We also need to update the release docs.
We don't need any profile during release anymore now.
> Am 29.05.2017 um 02:53 schrieb John D. Ament :
> We can look at it later, its not blocking for now. I created
We can look at it later, its not blocking for now. I created
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DELTASPIKE-1257 to track.
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:36 AM Mark Struberg
> The error I got was something else. This happened even with the
The error I got was something else. This happened even with the distribution
Maven complained that the bom pom points to an illegal parent pom (warning) and
kept complaining about 'unresolved snaphots left' asking me to specify the
version for the various deltaspike modules.
I think that was the goal of the requestor's ask:
- Not provide a bad bom
- Only bring in our stuff
DeltaSpike is very odd in the landscape, we don't directly declare
dependencies. That's what makes a bom like this very useful and easy to
manage, it doesn't bring in anything else. What would
I'm kind of sharing Mark's feedback, each time I tried to use it
(arquillian, spring, ...) it just had a very bad user experience after the
first manually added dependency so not sure it does worth all the tricks
the build would require or if we even really want to propose it to end
Except that it broke Maven.
In general I find this bom very questionable.
Why would one use that?
Usually boms get created as 'mashup' project to combine different separately
And there almost exclusively to pin down the versions of those various
So why would one
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:37 AM wrote:
> Repository: deltaspike
> Updated Branches:
> refs/heads/master 6721ca6ec -> a62a93fca
> further release fixes
> Project: http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/deltaspike/repo