+1 to make it happen in POM 4.1
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024, 10:40 Jorge Solórzano wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 9:57 PM Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>
> > I think it's very feasible to get rid of and replace with
> > in the POM.
> > Without breaking compatibility of course, as we could keep
> > in POM
Le 2024-08-05 à 14 h 19, Tamás Cservenák a écrit :
You are on the right track and Guillame and I had a lot of discussions
about this. IMO, best would be to wait for him (is on PTO I think) and
have a chat face to face?
Yes I'm fine with a talk. I'm available most time of the day (except
toda
On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 9:57 PM Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> I think it's very feasible to get rid of and replace with
> in the POM.
> Without breaking compatibility of course, as we could keep
> in POM 4.0 and use in POM 4.1.
>
>
I like the approach of keeping in POM 4.0 and using in
POM 4.1.
+
Hello Olivier and all
Le 2024-08-05 à 19 h 37, Oliver B. Fischer a écrit :
I would say the term module is totally fine. We have, as everywhere in
our human word, a lot of homonyms, everythere.
Yes, this is recognized in both the current documentation and the change
proposal. The documentatio
