Mailing-List: contact dev-help@maven.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Maven Developers List" <dev@maven.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of aheritier@gmail.com
 designates 72.14.220.154 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :content-type;
        b=arSjkP02r0CJEZN4d+lwunUXQEyH+pMY1TUw/iO+tsns15dGBIwDuonZc3cjKr8EXE
         JbpmXj5Qk3zg4GT5UvWMd93mTHUWQ5W0kvc+9qUzWsQKReudmdcWIzqSv4HvZKASadwb
         HXRQTpzKKekEPUV8BXJMhjFWGiaW7bJFXn07c=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <AA7C81F8-CE7A-4FAF-8A33-C2433D40D097@apache.org>
References: <b9e663070912260234u2cc3dfcena5e01e6aed902791@mail.gmail.com>
	<eb0f802d0912281839t1c25b171s7df3973f115abb71@mail.gmail.com>
	<0D8D2C09-649F-4DE0-AF58-538FB2B9F146@apache.org>
 <880523E4-3458-44A9-BFAF-BA25771EF165@sonatype.com>
	<263580E4-A6DF-4BBD-8B43-D132A9CA6D56@dslextreme.com>
 <262c6c680912290118w78e450b1g88976d7e3315de39@mail.gmail.com>
	<A7B2F279-EC28-404F-94A3-5A233C56F3E1@apache.org>
 <262c6c680912290828m27ae3c5etff8dfb026847e3cc@mail.gmail.com>
	<6C9E9300-9611-4EF8-B9D6-7CA8285F9E10@dslextreme.com>
 <AA7C81F8-CE7A-4FAF-8A33-C2433D40D097@apache.org>
From: Arnaud HERITIER <aheritier@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 02:05:02 +0100
Message-ID: <262c6c680912291705t1bd165a3g8e83f173085e06a6@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Maven 2.2.2 soon?
To: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f793669ce6bf047be7bb60

--001485f793669ce6bf047be7bb60
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

>
> > What I recall discussing with Brian at ApacheCon was having a new project
> descriptor but making sure that when projects are installed or deployed a
> pom compatible with the current format would also be deployed along with the
> new descriptor. If the new project descriptor allows extension then this
> could continue to work as things change.
>
>
> Yah, I think we've been beating this around for a while... in my mind, it's
> still a unified repository metadata format that the POM translates to (and a
> parallel 4.0.0 POM / maven-metadata for old clients).
>
> It seems like that and the POM and the deprecations can be the single focus
> for 3.1... we just need to ship "Snow Maven" at this point so we can move on
> to new things.
>
>
>
Do we have in 3.0 a mechanism to have a constraint when we develop a plugin
to say that it requires a minimal version of POM.
Let's imagine we add a new data in the pom in 4.1.0 and a plugin needs to
use them, thus maven shouldn't automatically check when it load a plugin
that it is compatible with the POM version.

Another question about 3.0, did we reintroduce // dowloads ? I think it
wasn't here in the last alpha.

Arnaud

--001485f793669ce6bf047be7bb60--