Re: [DISCUSS] Effect of direct plugin invocation on model

2010-01-14 Thread Peter Lynch
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Brett Porter wrote: > > What is the original use case that led to the bug? I'm wondering if it is > sane and needs the runtime info, or if it actually should have just the POM > as fully resolved from the repo. > > Cheers, > Brett > > The code involved is at line

Re: [DISCUSS] Effect of direct plugin invocation on model

2010-01-10 Thread Brett Porter
On 11/01/2010, at 5:47 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote: > Brett Porter wrote: > >> From an execution PoV, I would still expect my pluginManagement blocks to >> apply to a plugin called on the command line that is not otherwise in the >> POM. However, if this makes things too complicated and we wan

Re: [DISCUSS] Effect of direct plugin invocation on model

2010-01-10 Thread Benjamin Bentmann
Brett Porter wrote: From an execution PoV, I would still expect my pluginManagement blocks to apply to a plugin called on the command line that is not otherwise in the POM. However, if this makes things too complicated and we want to require a change to include the plugin in the POM as well a

Re: [DISCUSS] Effect of direct plugin invocation on model

2010-01-10 Thread Brett Porter
On 09/01/2010, at 10:43 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote: > Hi, > > in response to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4523, I would like to > double-check that the behavior observed in Maven 2 is by design/intention and > needs to be reproduced by Maven 3. It looks odd to me that the effective PO

Re: [DISCUSS] Effect of direct plugin invocation on model

2010-01-09 Thread Brian Fox
In 2.x the plugins you get from the lifecycle depend on which phase was executed, and it frankly drove me crazy trying to write the enforcer plugin rules. I think there are several things a plugin should be able to get: 1) the original model as parsed from disk with no interpolation or inheritence

Re: [DISCUSS] Effect of direct plugin invocation on model

2010-01-09 Thread Stephen Connolly
2010/1/9 Peter Lynch : > On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 2010/1/9 Benjamin Bentmann : >> > Hi, >> > >> > in response to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4523, I would like to >> >  double-check that the behavior observed in Maven

Re: [DISCUSS] Effect of direct plugin invocation on model

2010-01-09 Thread Benjamin Bentmann
Peter Lynch wrote: It is far from invariant. I noticed in the debugger that the project model contained 4 plugins ( clean,site, install, deploy if i recall), none being the one explicitly called in Maven 3. Those plugins are contributed by lifecycle mappings corresponding to the packaging of

Re: [DISCUSS] Effect of direct plugin invocation on model

2010-01-09 Thread Peter Lynch
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/1/9 Benjamin Bentmann : > > Hi, > > > > in response to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4523, I would like to > > double-check that the behavior observed in Maven 2 is by > design/intention > > an

Re: [DISCUSS] Effect of direct plugin invocation on model

2010-01-09 Thread Stephen Connolly
2010/1/9 Benjamin Bentmann : > Hi, > > in response to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4523, I would like to >  double-check that the behavior observed in Maven 2 is by design/intention > and needs to be reproduced by Maven 3. It looks odd to me that the effective > POM is a function of the plug

[DISCUSS] Effect of direct plugin invocation on model

2010-01-09 Thread Benjamin Bentmann
Hi, in response to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4523, I would like to double-check that the behavior observed in Maven 2 is by design/intention and needs to be reproduced by Maven 3. It looks odd to me that the effective POM is a function of the plugin being invoked on CLI. Benjamin