Without breaking backwards compatibility, it could be a choice for the Pom.
Sure that’s an addition, but it it not like the format can never change.
It’s an excellent idea.
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 5:28 PM Robert Scholte wrote:
> As mentioned by Elliotte this won't fit in the current pom model ve
Hi,
I'm writing some maven plugins - some for fun and with public code but more
maven plugins I'm writing for job in my company.
Maven from version 3.1.x use slf4j for logging.
But plugin api still use simple logging api
org.apache.maven.plugin.logging.Log.
It will be useful to have access to mo
As mentioned by Elliotte this won't fit in the current pom model version.
And it will effect dependency resolution. The current order of dependencies in
the pom reflects the order on the classpath.
As long as there are no duplicate classes you should be fine, but the real
world shows us differe
Hi Maven :),
I encountered an exception in my build and I'm not sure if there is
something wrong with how I structure tasks in my pom.xml, or there is a
room for improvement of the shade plugin.
The symptoms are as follows:
- mvn install works just fine
- mvn deploy fails on 'duplicate er
It's not a bad idea if we were starting from a green field. I'm not
sure how the broader community would feel about changing the structure
of the pom.xml file at this point. These things are very broadly used,
and my gut is that the small improvement would not justify the pain of
the transition.
O
