[
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-2184?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_123036
]
Brian Fox commented on MNG-2184:
The ounce:application goal is an aggregator that is intended to be bound to a
pom. We need
[
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-2184?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_123037
]
John Casey commented on MNG-2184:
-
you're not talking about an aggregator mojo, just a regular one that uses
[
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-2184?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_123017
]
John Casey commented on MNG-2184:
-
But what are the implications for that? If they're bound to the usual root pom
of a
[
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-2184?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_122850
]
John Casey commented on MNG-2184:
-
See revId: 619720 on trunk...does this do enough to prevent bound-aggregator
weirdness?
[
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-2184?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_122851
]
John Casey commented on MNG-2184:
-
619720 improves the logic of skipping vs. warning of deprecation (deprecated to
bind
[
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-2184?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_122853
]
John Casey commented on MNG-2184:
-
thinking about this more, if an aggregator mojo is bound simultaneously to two
module poms
[
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-2184?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_122875
]
Brian Fox commented on MNG-2184:
We need to support aggregators in the lifecycle, i'm convinced of that, but
they should only
[ http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-2184?page=comments#action_62425 ]
Brett Porter commented on MNG-2184:
---
This only happens as part of the site, because it doesn't support using
@aggregator for reports. I think this is a dupe - I'll search.
This is a
[ http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-2184?page=comments#action_62426 ]
Brett Porter commented on MNG-2184:
---
ok, I think I was mistaken. I was proabbly thinking of when reports couldn't
fork lifecycles. So this indeed seems to be a bug, but a very risky
