Mailing-List: contact dev-help@openjpa.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@openjpa.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
References: <1326479081.75126.YahooMailNeo@web27802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
 <CABH8ernJ9_2WhfpfU-0n4Ov0v3zofYaaaQSWO_1ii9GQ_Gct-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1326481514.72615.YahooMailNeo@web27803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1326730979.34182.YahooMailNeo@web114510.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 08:22:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Donald Woods <dwoods@apache.org>
Reply-To: Donald Woods <dwoods@apache.org>
Subject: Re: apache parent pom 10
To: "dev@openjpa.apache.org" <dev@openjpa.apache.org>,
  Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>
In-Reply-To: <1326481514.72615.YahooMailNeo@web27803.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="2094750174-12867137-1326730979=:34182"

--2094750174-12867137-1326730979=:34182
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Moving up should be okay, as long as the required runtime dependencies don'=
t change.=0AWhen I updated the builds to use the new Nexus repo, 7 was the =
version everyone said to use.=0A=0A=0A-Donald=0A=0A=0A=0A__________________=
______________=0A From: Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>=0ATo: "dev@openjp=
a.apache.org" <dev@openjpa.apache.org> =0ASent: Friday, January 13, 2012 2:=
05 PM=0ASubject: Re: apache parent pom 10=0A =0Aapache parent 7 is really _=
very_ old and contains afaik some old rat rules, etc.=0AThere also have bee=
n problems with the release to repository.apache.org with older parent poms=
.=A0=0AApache parent most of the times just upgrades to newer, bugfixed plu=
gin versions but won't change dependencies.=0A=0ALieGrue,=0Astrub=0A=0A=0A-=
---- Original Message -----=0A> From: Kevin Sutter <kwsutter@gmail.com>=0A>=
 To: dev@openjpa.apache.org; Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de>=0A> Cc: =0A>=
 Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 7:52 PM=0A> Subject: Re: apache parent pom =
10=0A> =0A> Hi Mark,=0A> Enjoy your vacation!=0A> =0A> I think you'll find =
that the OpenJPA community is kind of conservative.=A0 We=0A> normally don'=
t move to new things=A0 like this parent pom unless it's=0A> providing some=
 function that is required.=A0 Even if it provides support for=0A> maven-3,=
 are there aspects of maven-3 that are on our wish list?=A0 I don't=0A> min=
d upgrading to newer dependencies when it provides some bang for the=0A> bu=
ck.=A0 But, moving to the latest just because it's the latest doesn't =0A> =
get=0A> me too excited.=A0 Know what I mean?=0A> =0A> (That was my personal=
 opinion, not necessarily the openjpa team's opinion.)=0A> =0A> Thanks,=0A>=
 Kevin=0A> =0A> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Mark Struberg <struberg@y=
ahoo.de> wrote:=0A> =0A>>=A0 Hi!=0A>> =0A>>=A0 I saw that we use a pretty o=
ld apache parent-7.=0A>>=A0 We should upgrade to version 10 which improves =
support for maven-3 and=0A>>=A0 other goodies.=0A>> =0A>>=A0 Of course this=
 needs some testing and a comparison of dependency and=0A>>=A0 plugin versi=
ons we get due to this.=0A>> =0A>> =0A>>=A0 Btw, I'll be on vacation from t=
omorrow on till next friday. Means you =0A> have=0A>>=A0 at least 7 days be=
fore I return to my task with preparing the 2.2.0=0A>>=A0 release. I'll cat=
ch up next friday and check the status.=0A>> =0A>>=A0 LieGrue,=0A>>=A0 stru=
b=0A>> =0A>
--2094750174-12867137-1326730979=:34182--