Re: Putting the archetype plugin version in the super POM

2010-02-01 Thread Brett Porter
On 01/02/2010, at 10:57 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote: > Brett Porter wrote: > >> I'm not that tied to the idea, it was just a thought to avoid the potential >> problem that had been raised by a user. > > Please consider that such a version lockdown is twofold: It not only saves > the user from

Re: Putting the archetype plugin version in the super POM

2010-02-01 Thread Brian Fox
> > We should endeavour to leave only the build time related plugins being locked > down. Things like the IDE generating plugins, the site stuff, and archetype > stuff should all be removed eventually and decoupled from the core entirely. > We're just making a bigger mess tying all this stuff to

Interested in providing a mirror

2010-02-01 Thread Dionysios G. Synodinos
In our university, we're providing mirrors for several open source projects (e.g. Eclipse ) and would like to do the same for Maven. What are the requirements and procedure to do so? Kind Regards, Dionysios G. Synodinos

Re: Putting the archetype plugin version in the super POM

2010-02-01 Thread Benjamin Bentmann
Brett Porter wrote: I'm not that tied to the idea, it was just a thought to avoid the potential problem that had been raised by a user. Please consider that such a version lockdown is twofold: It not only saves the user from potential regressions in newer versions but also excludes him from