Hey Tibor!
For sure we should do that!
+1
T
On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 10:35 PM Tibor Digaňa
wrote:
>
> +1
> Maybe I should join You.
> Let's organize a virtual beer :-)
> T
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 1:07 AM Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > We fixed 4 issues:
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org
+1
Maybe I should join You.
Let's organize a virtual beer :-)
T
On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 1:07 AM Olivier Lamy wrote:
> Hi,
> We fixed 4 issues:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12317927&version=12355687
>
> Staged repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/con
Howdy,
two very wrong conclusions here:
1- "artifacts in the same groupId have the same version" - nope. The
fact they are in the same G does NOT have to mean they also share a
"release lifecycle".
2- example of above is maven-archiver: it is NOT part of Maven "core",
but is in this G by mistake (
If you want to align versions, use dependency management + properties, this
will apply to transitive dependencies too.
Le jeu. 27 mars 2025 à 17:44, Bear Giles a écrit :
> The idea is simple - many (not all) projects are built using modules that
> assign the same version to all artifacts. If we'
