On 01/02/2010, at 10:57 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
> Brett Porter wrote:
>
>> I'm not that tied to the idea, it was just a thought to avoid the potential
>> problem that had been raised by a user.
>
> Please consider that such a version lockdown is twofold: It not only saves
> the user from
>
> We should endeavour to leave only the build time related plugins being locked
> down. Things like the IDE generating plugins, the site stuff, and archetype
> stuff should all be removed eventually and decoupled from the core entirely.
> We're just making a bigger mess tying all this stuff to
Brett Porter wrote:
I'm not that tied to the idea, it was just a thought to avoid the potential
problem that had been raised by a user.
Please consider that such a version lockdown is twofold: It not only
saves the user from potential regressions in newer versions but also
excludes him from
On 01/02/2010, at 2:01 PM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>> I think this has come up before and we wanted to avoid doing it for things
>> on the command line, where it is hard to override. In general that would be
>> true, but for the archetype plugi
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> I think this has come up before and we wanted to avoid doing it for things on
> the command line, where it is hard to override. In general that would be
> true, but for the archetype plugin being the first experience people have
> with Mave
On 29/01/2010, at 5:37 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On 2010-01-29, at 6:29 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>>
>> On 29/01/2010, at 4:26 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>> -1
>>
>> got a reason? :)
>>
>
> We should endeavour to leave only the build time related plugins being locked
> down. Things l
On 2010-01-29, at 6:29 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> On 29/01/2010, at 4:26 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> -1
>
> got a reason? :)
>
We should endeavour to leave only the build time related plugins being locked
down. Things like the IDE generating plugins, the site stuff, and archetype
stuff
On 29/01/2010, at 4:26 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> -1
got a reason? :)
>
> On 2010-01-29, at 6:15 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>>
>> On 15/01/2010, at 1:45 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 15/01/2010, at 12:42 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
>>>
Brett Porter wrote:
> Perhaps
-1
On 2010-01-29, at 6:15 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> On 15/01/2010, at 1:45 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>>
>> On 15/01/2010, at 12:42 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
>>
>>> Brett Porter wrote:
>>>
Perhaps we might only do it for 3.0 if that's the case (esp. since this
has a very minor
On 15/01/2010, at 1:45 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> On 15/01/2010, at 12:42 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
>
>> Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps we might only do it for 3.0 if that's the case (esp. since this has
>>> a very minor chance of incompatibility if the property is in use).
>>
>> Why
On 15/01/2010, at 12:42 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
> Brett Porter wrote:
>
>> Perhaps we might only do it for 3.0 if that's the case (esp. since this has
>> a very minor chance of incompatibility if the property is in use).
>
> Why has the version to be locked down in the first place? Is it
Brett Porter wrote:
Perhaps we might only do it for 3.0 if that's the case (esp. since this has a
very minor chance of incompatibility if the property is in use).
Why has the version to be locked down in the first place? Is it to
prevent usage of a snapshot version? If so, I don't think this
I think this has come up before and we wanted to avoid doing it for things on
the command line, where it is hard to override. In general that would be true,
but for the archetype plugin being the first experience people have with Maven,
a bit more reliability would probably be useful.
I thought
13 matches
Mail list logo
