maven-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <>
Subject Re: opinions on MJAVADOC-451
Date Fri, 05 Aug 2016 14:37:48 GMT
I'm always in favor of adding skip properties. They are very useful for
manipulating builds for debugging, running on CI servers, controlling
executions in child poms, etc. Even if it's not recommended to run
unattended, it's still possible, so a skip option is useful.

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016, 11:47 Richard Sand <> wrote:

> Anyone want to give this a quick read/opinion? :-)
> -Richard
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Richard Sand" <>
> To:
> Sent: 8/1/2016 6:33:30 PM
> Subject: opinions on MJAVADOC-451
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I'd like to ask for opinions on
> > Robert Scholte and
> >I have been discussing this off list and essentially disagree on it.
> >
> >The request is very simple - to add a "skip" parameter to the
> >javadoc:fix goal. In my projects we are using the fix goal unattended,
> >i.e. with the parameter "force=true", as part of the regular build
> >lifecycle.
> >
> >Most goals (including javadoc) that run in the regular lifecycle have a
> >skip option. Robert's position (and forgive me if I misrepresent this
> >at all Robert and please weigh in) is that javadoc:fix should not be
> >used in the lifecycle and that the goal should in fact have
> >requireDirectInvocation=true. He also pointed out to me that I can
> >create a profile to enable/disable the goal as an alternative.
> >
> >My opinion is that, since the goal does not require direct invocation,
> >then running within the lifecycle has to be considered acceptable use
> >of the goal. And having a skip parameter adds 5 lines of code, is a
> >common and normal pattern used by many other plugins/goals, and allows
> >the goal to be used in this fashion without introducing even more
> >profiles.
> >
> >I've submitted patches for this issue and also several other issues in
> >the javadoc plugin as I continue to work through getting the goal to
> >work well automated. Just pointing out that I'm not just asking for the
> >larger community to do stuff to make my life easier - I'm trying to
> >contribute as best I can and provide patches for what I uncover.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >Richard
> >
> >

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message