Release plugin snapshot resolution in dependencyManagement section

2013-08-27 Thread Konrad
Hello everyone, I was wondering why the resolution of snapshots in the dependency section is implemented but the resolution of snapshots in the dependencyManagement section is not. There is also a @TODO comment regarding this at CheckDependencySnapshots.java line 148. As far as I can see the

Re: Adding support for new dependency mediation strategy

2013-08-27 Thread Robert Scholte
Op Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:34:07 +0200 schreef Stephen Connolly : On Tuesday, 27 August 2013, Robert Scholte wrote: Op Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:59:08 +0200 schreef Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>: On 27 August 2013 09:46, Stephen Connolly wrote: On 27 August 2013 09:00, Jörg

Re: Adding support for new dependency mediation strategy

2013-08-27 Thread Stephen Connolly
On Tuesday, 27 August 2013, Robert Scholte wrote: > Op Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:59:08 +0200 schreef Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>: > > On 27 August 2013 09:46, Stephen Connolly >> wrote: >> >> On 27 August 2013 09:00, Jörg Schaible >> >wrote: >>> >>> > And since this would be

Re: Adding support for new dependency mediation strategy

2013-08-27 Thread Robert Scholte
Op Tue, 27 Aug 2013 10:59:08 +0200 schreef Stephen Connolly : On 27 August 2013 09:46, Stephen Connolly wrote: On 27 August 2013 09:00, Jörg Schaible wrote: > And since this would be for a new Maven, we need only concern ourselves > that the contract of the new Maven's classpath and pro

Re: Adding support for new dependency mediation strategy

2013-08-27 Thread Jörg Schaible
Hi Stephen, Stephen Connolly wrote: > On 27 August 2013 10:55, Jörg Schaible > wrote: > >> Hi Stephen, >> >> In consequence this will also implicitly drop (transitive) dependency >> manipulations with profiles. >> >> > Yes, a "good thing" in my opinion ;-) Definitely, although I'd love to adju

RE: artifact attached by plugin not appearing in subsequent plugins

2013-08-27 Thread Richard Sand
I've tried it to the extent possible, yes. I attach with a classifier "small" to indicate the obfuscated (and shrunken) jar. The maven war plugin will look at the MavenProject.getArtifacts() to pull in the scoped dependencies, but it doesn't look at MavenProject.getAttachedArtifacts(). There just i

Re: Adding support for new dependency mediation strategy

2013-08-27 Thread Stephen Connolly
On 27 August 2013 10:55, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > In consequence this will also implicitly drop (transitive) dependency > manipulations with profiles. > > Yes, a "good thing" in my opinion ;-) > However, all makes sense now to me - thanks for explaining. > Just my vision... I don

Re: Adding support for new dependency mediation strategy

2013-08-27 Thread Jörg Schaible
Hi Stephen, Stephen Connolly wrote: > On 27 August 2013 09:46, Stephen Connolly > wrote: > >> On 27 August 2013 09:00, Jörg Schaible >> wrote: >> >>> > And since this would be for a new Maven, we need only concern >>> > ourselves that the contract of the new Maven's classpath and property >>> >

Re: Adding support for new dependency mediation strategy

2013-08-27 Thread Stephen Connolly
On 27 August 2013 09:46, Stephen Connolly wrote: > On 27 August 2013 09:00, Jörg Schaible wrote: > >> > And since this would be for a new Maven, we need only concern ourselves >> > that the contract of the new Maven's classpath and property behaviour is >> > correct... thus we don't have to preser

Re: Adding support for new dependency mediation strategy

2013-08-27 Thread Stephen Connolly
On 27 August 2013 09:00, Jörg Schaible wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > Stephen Connolly wrote: > > > On 26 August 2013 08:27, Jörg Schaible > > wrote: > > > >> Hi Stephen, > >> > >> Stephen Connolly wrote: > >> > >> [snip] > >> > >> > It's better than that... I am not sure if I said it earlier or not,

Re: Adding support for new dependency mediation strategy

2013-08-27 Thread Jörg Schaible
Hi Stephen, Stephen Connolly wrote: > On 26 August 2013 08:27, Jörg Schaible > wrote: > >> Hi Stephen, >> >> Stephen Connolly wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> > It's better than that... I am not sure if I said it earlier or not, so >> > I will try to say it now. >> > >> > When we get the next format,