On Nov 24, 2010, at 6:19 PM, Brett Porter wrote: > > On 25/11/2010, at 12:12 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > >> >> On Nov 24, 2010, at 5:44 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: >> >>> I'm not against any of the changes you made and it is my fault for not >>> noticing earlier. As a general rule I don't believe the Apache pom should >>> contain alpha or beta releases. >> >> I would say they can't. You potentially destabilize someone's environment >> entirely. We don't have the best track record for making sure things work, >> the WAR plugin is a recent case in point. If there are betas, maybe on a >> case by case basis. If there are actually alpha plugins in there then -1. > > Let's put it in context... > > The betas are: > - assembly plugin 2.2-beta-5 (was in beta before) > - site plugin 3.0-beta-3 (only in maven 3 profile, no alternative) > - enforcer plugin 1.0-beta-1 (very stable version). > - release plugin 2.0-beta-9. > > There's been nothing upgraded to a beta - they were there already. > > assembly 2.2 and enforcer 1.0 were released recently, and the release plugin > has been out for ages. They can probably go into the next parent POM release > (I've just updated trunk). > > Beyond that, I agree - let's not use beta-quality code (or better, not ship > beta-quality code :) >
Actually, my point was really that if they were good enough to put in the apache parent pom then they almost certainly aren't beta quality code. Even with the site plugin, now that maven 3 is released whatever is available is all there is so it might as well be released. BTW - the gpg plugin was also a beta in 7 so at least there is one less in this release. Ralph --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
