Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-09-03 Thread Jason Dillon
Sorry, I've not read this entire thread, but have a quick comment... This idea of plugin packs could easily be extended to the more generic pom inclusion stuff I've talked about previously. There other things besides plugin version binding that could be bundled up into a reusable package

Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-09-02 Thread Brett Porter
On 03/09/2007, at 8:46 AM, Brian E. Fox wrote: Everything else you said below makes sense and is pretty much in line with my experience, so I think it's best to defer this for a general mixins proposal (if at all). I'm pretty sure that a general ability to "include" or "mixin" some other piec

Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-09-02 Thread William Ferguson
t: [***POSSIBLE SPAM***] - Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning - Email has different SMTP TO: and MIME TO: fields in the email addresses On 1 Sep 07, at 4:35 AM 1 Sep 07, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > Le samedi 1 septembre 2007, Brian E. Fox a écrit : >> I think we can do t

RE: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-09-02 Thread Brian E. Fox
>Everything else you said below makes sense and is pretty much in line >with my experience, so I think it's best to defer this for a general >mixins proposal (if at all). I'm pretty sure that a general ability to "include" or "mixin" some other piece of xml into the pom would come in handy, bu

Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-09-02 Thread Brett Porter
Hi Brian, Thanks for the great response - comments inline... On 02/09/2007, at 11:30 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote: The misunderstanding seems to be: 1) that I thought we were going to require plugin versions to be specified in the future. You seem to say that is no longer the case. I think you're

Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-09-02 Thread Dennis Lundberg
Brian E. Fox wrote: I haven't used the enforcer myself yet. How would "turn on the enforcer rule" look inside a pom? See here for an example. Note that multiple rules can be configured at once. (also this rule is in the current snapshot rev) http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-enforcer-plu

RE: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-09-02 Thread Brian E. Fox
>> If this pom section is simple enough, I think people who care about >> reproducibility will use it. Would it be possible to combine this with >> a warning? >I'm not 100% certain, but I think that would require pulling some of the >enforcer logic into the core... >This might be a good thing

RE: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-09-02 Thread Brian E. Fox
>I haven't used the enforcer myself yet. How would "turn on the enforcer >rule" look inside a pom? See here for an example. Note that multiple rules can be configured at once. (also this rule is in the current snapshot rev) http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-enforcer-plugin/rules/requirePlugi

RE: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-09-02 Thread Brian E. Fox
>The misunderstanding seems to be: >1) that I thought we were going to require plugin versions to be >specified in the future. You seem to say that is no longer the case. I think you're right here. After reading your response to my comments, I realized my (and I think Jason's) assumption is that

Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-09-02 Thread Stephen Connolly
Dennis Lundberg wrote: Jason van Zyl wrote: On 1 Sep 07, at 7:42 PM 1 Sep 07, Brett Porter wrote: I'd be ok with it looking like this: 4.0.0 test test Test 1.0-SNAPSHOT org.apache.maven.plugins.packs maven-java-plugin-pack 1.0

Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-09-02 Thread Dennis Lundberg
Jason van Zyl wrote: On 1 Sep 07, at 7:42 PM 1 Sep 07, Brett Porter wrote: I'd be ok with it looking like this: 4.0.0 test test Test 1.0-SNAPSHOT org.apache.maven.plugins.packs maven-java-plugin-pack 1.0 You

Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-09-01 Thread Brett Porter
Jason, I completely agree with everything you said below, in terms of what users want at least. So I'm obviously not communicating what I want well, since you seem to have completely missed my point in every response. The misunderstanding seems to be: 1) that I thought we were going to re

Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-09-01 Thread Jason van Zyl
On 1 Sep 07, at 7:42 PM 1 Sep 07, Brett Porter wrote: I'd be ok with it looking like this: 4.0.0 test test Test 1.0-SNAPSHOT org.apache.maven.plugins.packs maven-java-plugin-pack 1.0 You don't need that to st

Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-09-01 Thread Brett Porter
On 01/09/2007, at 8:00 AM, Brian E. Fox wrote: It only checks for the condition and fails the build. It currently does not make changes or suggestions. The enforcer is about enforcing, not fixing ;-) but the rule could be executed by another plugin and used as a starting place to lookup f

Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-09-01 Thread Jason van Zyl
On 1 Sep 07, at 4:35 AM 1 Sep 07, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: Le samedi 1 septembre 2007, Brian E. Fox a écrit : I think we can do this just by generating a sample pluginManagement snippet on the site somewhere. I don't think anything fancy is needed, simply providing the snipet so someone can copy

Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-09-01 Thread Hervé BOUTEMY
Le samedi 1 septembre 2007, Brian E. Fox a écrit : > I think we can do this just by generating a sample pluginManagement > snippet on the site somewhere. I don't think anything fancy is needed, > simply providing the snipet so someone can copy and paste will be more > than sufficient. Having it gen

RE: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-08-31 Thread Brian E. Fox
Comments inline also -Original Message- From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 12:20 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning sorry for the brevity - I'm heading off to bed and am afk for a day

Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-08-31 Thread Arnaud HERITIER
... > A future enhancement may be to be able to (and if so, require) plugin > versions to be declared in the Maven settings files. but in that case it could be interesting to be able to have an extend mechanism of settings using the repository like a parent pom. The idea is to be able to defin

Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-08-31 Thread Jason van Zyl
On 31 Aug 07, at 9:20 AM 31 Aug 07, Brett Porter wrote: sorry for the brevity - I'm heading off to bed and am afk for a day and a bit so wanted to get a quick response in... On 01/09/2007, at 1:45 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: A couple notes that you can incorporate from experiences I've had b

Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-08-31 Thread Brett Porter
sorry for the brevity - I'm heading off to bed and am afk for a day and a bit so wanted to get a quick response in... On 01/09/2007, at 1:45 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: A couple notes that you can incorporate from experiences I've had based on a client setup: - The enforcer plugin now has a r

Re: [PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-08-31 Thread Jason van Zyl
A couple notes that you can incorporate from experiences I've had based on a client setup: - The enforcer plugin now has a rule to fully lock down all plugin versions - You do have to lock down all plugins including things like "eclipse:eclipse" because these are used extensively by many

[PROPOSAL] Plugin packs and concrete versioning

2007-08-31 Thread Brett Porter
I have revised the proposal I made earlier based on Jason and John's feedback. See: http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Plugin+packs+and+concrete +versioning Text included below for inline comments (which I'll feed back into the document as needed). Context Currently, plugin versions