commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dennis Lundberg <>
Subject Re: commons-parent-7 discussion
Date Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:37:19 GMT
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
> On 1/11/08, Niall Pemberton <> wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 2008 10:06 AM, Jochen Wiedmann <> wrote:
>>> On Jan 11, 2008 10:57 AM, Niall Pemberton <> wrote:
>>>> Theres also the issue of specifying the "version" of the
>>>> remote-resources-plugin - which in previous discussions people
>>>> objected to. Please Note this is not configuring commons-parent to
>>>> *use* that plugin - but just to specify the version number *if* a
>>>> component does use it. I don't mind it going in and it has no impact
>>>> unless components use it. Does anyone still have a problem with doing
>>>> this? Also are there any other changes people think should be made
>>>> before trying to release commons-parent-7?
>>> I have no particular problem with it, apart from the fact that I find
>>> it pointless.
>>> If there is some code that actually uses the plugin, then that makes
>>> sense. This code might be contained in some profile, in other words,
>>> not used unless explicitly requested. But just to fix a version
>>> number? What for?
>> Because Dennis wants it and if it causes no issues, then its one less
>> thing to disagree on.
> <snip/>
> But its one more thing to maintain (and update versions, and trigger a
> pom release etc. -- as an aside, the number of Maven related releases
> may have exceeded component releases in the recent past).

We don't have to use the latest versions if we don't want to. If we are 
happy with version 1.0 we can stick with that for ever and ever, without 
the need to update commons-parent.

The number of Maven related release will decrease over time, once we 
have settled in on how we want to do all things Maven.

> Also, it
> isn't adding much value given recent discussions and the current state
> of its implementation, metadata etc. IMO.

See my comment to Jochen.

> I don't think of this as having more or less things to disagree on,
> but we've had a long discussion and the reservations expressed by more
> than one of us have been well articulated therein, IMO.

There has been misunderstandings in said discussions regarding this. I 
suggest that you read what Niall wrote in the first mail of this thread 
once more, as he summed up the implications of the change nicely.

> -Rahul
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Dennis Lundberg

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message