Stephen Connolly wrote: > * we should let the user define lifecycles directly in the Pom (ok, maybe we > don't *encourage it*)
More packaging-related phases in the default lifecycle. I very much like the idea of a standard lifecycle, as it often forces you to rethink your project's structure. (me: "Why can't I have two compile phases in the same build, on compiling the code generator and one compiling the generated code?" Maven: "Because this is not Ant and you really have two different projects." me: "Of course; makes much more sense!"). Alas, the current default lifecycle doesn't cope well with builds that need to selectively (profiles) sign and pack200 their artifacts. See [1] for an example where the exact declaration order in the POM matters (which it really shouldn't), just because there are no suitable phases after "package". Best wishes, Andreas [1] <http://www.codetrails.com/blog/sign-your-eclipse-project>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
