Jose Alberto Fernandez wrote:
>
> I thought one of the main arguments in all this discussion is to make
> things simple and easy for users. At least those were the comments against
> forcing everyone to explicitly set versions for everything. The bundle
> will free every single user of having t
Brian E. Fox wrote:
>
> Everyone keeps referring to bundles that "are known to work together."
> Come someone produce an example of plugins that are incompatible with
> each other? I haven't seen this and I'm not even sure it's possible
> given that plugins can't communicate or even know about
Wayne Fay wrote:
>
> On 4/21/07, Jose Alberto Fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So if I say BETA then no alpha bundle (a bundle
>> containing alpha software) will be selected.
>
> Who exactly decides what the quality is for a given release? Outside
> of a handful (literally) of major ap
Hmm, that's a good idea. A Maven distribution based on a given Maven
release. Is this like what "Maven Enterprise" will be?
John Casey wrote:
>
> Sure, my only point was that without this (and the standard packaging
> definitions) _nothing_ will work...it's just a gut-level uneasiness, not
>
Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>
> I think every maven release should use a defined set of plugin versions.
> That would be reproducible and close to what it's happening now.
>
Sounds good. So for the compile plugin if I don't specify a version I get
the default that was tested as part of the release
