+1 this is a great idea for downstream systems like PCC.
+1 for bom. It's just so much easier
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019, 7:35 PM Jacob Barrett wrote:
> +1 for the change and +1 for BOMs.
>
> We currently have an “all” BOM and a client BOM. Defining server and other
> usecase derived BOMs should be e
+1 for the change and +1 for BOMs.
We currently have an “all” BOM and a client BOM. Defining server and other
usecase derived BOMs should be easy.
-jake
> On Mar 15, 2019, at 4:16 PM, John Blum wrote:
>
> If users will be explicitly declaring such dependencies in their
> applications, then I
If users will be explicitly declaring such dependencies in their
applications, then I might also suggest declaring/generating a Maven
section in the POM to ensure that the user is
getting and using the right version of these dependencies, especially when
they don't care about the version (i.e. the
That seems like a great idea
On 3/15/19 11:53 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
Hi,
We would like to start using gradle's new implementation dependency
notation in our build files.
This will affect downstream consumers of geode-core, hopefully in a good
way, in that many of our dependencies will now be mar
Hi,
We would like to start using gradle's new implementation dependency
notation in our build files.
This will affect downstream consumers of geode-core, hopefully in a good
way, in that many of our dependencies will now be marked runtime
dependencies in the pom instead of compile. That means it
