Re: [DISCUSS] Next release should a pre Maven 4.0.0

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release should a pre Maven 4.0.0

Romain Manni-Bucau
Did we already do mvn or mvn plugins (multimodules) release with the
consumer/producer pom feature?
If so +1 to do a v4 with this new feature "for us" and v5 with real user
features and align it with the xsd.

Le jeu. 12 nov. 2020 à 20:00, Robert Scholte <[hidden email]> a
écrit :

> Hi,
>
> It is already several years ago where we started discussing about Maven
> Next Generations.
> Clearly we needed to work on the pom, because over time we're facing more
> and more limitations.
> For (Maven) Central the Model 4.0.0 will be required pom format, there's
> no discussion about that. So we needed a new architecture where there's a
> local pom that is transformed to Model 4.0.0 or where it can be generated.
> With the implementation of MNG-6656 and the improvement with MNG-6957
> we've made the first and important steps based on pom transformation. If
> this concept proofs itself, we can start thinking about enhancing the pom
> model.
>
> When talking about Model 5.0.0 it looked like it would be great to
> introduce it for Maven 5. There was even a period where we thought about
> skipping Maven 4, just to sync the Model version with the Maven version.
> However, we discovered that this would be a huge change, and that we would
> probably need a couple of Maven 4 releases before moving to Maven 5. Maven
> 4 would consist of preparation releases.
> I've started writing the build/consumer to proof that the it is indeed
> possible to separate the local pom from the distributed pom, even though
> they both are currently still Model 4.0.0 compatible.
> The original idea was:
> Maven 3: build/consumer feature disabled by default
> Maven 4: build/consumer feature enabled by default
>
> Maven 5: Model 5
>
> We were worried that this wouldn't give us enough feedback.
> maven-integration-testing shows that build/consumer does work. There should
> be enough trust to enable it by default, it shouldn't impact existing
> projects (the last find by Michael was actually great. It demonstrated the
> effect when using threads. The fix made sense and Maven was stable again).
> But it is simply not enough. We need much more feedback.
>
> Meanwhile other improvements have been done, that has impact:
> - new behavior of reactor commandline arguments
> - upgrade of default versions of plugins per packaging type
> - requiring Java 8
> - Maven wrapper
> - there's a PR waiting that will shift the logic of the
> ProjectBuilder/ModelBuilder. As this is quite important for more people to
> understand, I'll record a Q&A with Maarten+Martin soon and share it with
> you.
> There are probably more, but all these already defend my opinion about the
> next Maven version.
>
> To me it is not a Maven 3 anymore, we're reached a point where we should
> start calling it Maven 4.
> The next release should probably have an alpha suffix, just to give users
> the chance to do alpha testing.
>
> WDYT?
> Robert
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release should a pre Maven 4.0.0

rfscholte
Hi Andres,

BanDuplicatePomDependencyVersions is easy to add. IIRC now it is a warning, I don't mind changing it to make it break the build.

DependencyConvergence is way too difficult to achieve with the larger projects.

RequireUpperBoundDeps sounds reasonable as warning, although I'm sure if the ModelValidator has enough context.
Instead I would prefer to change the resolution strategy from Nearest to DirectOverHighest (or something similar), but that's definitely 5.0.0.


thanks,
Robert
On 12-11-2020 21:08:35, Andres Almiray <[hidden email]> wrote:
Woohoo!

While I'd love for Maven moving forward to 4 I was hoping to see the
enforcer plugin (or at least some of its rules) baked into core, for
example

BanDuplicatePomDependencyVersions
DependencyConvergence
RequireUpperBoundDeps

I'm sure that enabling these rules by default will break thousands of
builds upon upgrade, but at the very least having the behavior available
with a simple turn of a switch/flag is better than having to configure the
enforcer plugin by hand.
I'm also aware that there are those among this group that are not fond of
enforcer, so yeah.

So, if this behavior can't be added to 4, at least put it in the bucket for
5 ;-)

Cheers,
Andres

-------------------------------------------
Java Champion; Groovy Enthusiast
http://andresalmiray.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/aalmiray
--
What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator.
There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and
those who don't.
To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.


On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 9:00 PM Robert Scholte wrote:

> I don't expect that signing will work with the the first alpha, but that
> shouldn't stop us of collecting feedback.
> Also we need to have a look at all plugins that do something with the pom,
> like every packaging plugin, maven-source-plugin, maven-release-plugin to
> ensure the "right" pom is added.
>
> And for Maven 4.0.0 we shouldn't have milestone releases of plugins (even
> though they are stable).
> There's still enough work to reach 4.0.0, but most likely the first alphas
> are already good enough for the majority.
>
> On 12-11-2020 20:45:09, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> Did we already do mvn or mvn plugins (multimodules) release with the
> consumer/producer pom feature?
> If so +1 to do a v4 with this new feature "for us" and v5 with real user
> features and align it with the xsd.
>
> Le jeu. 12 nov. 2020 à 20:00, Robert Scholte a
> écrit :
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > It is already several years ago where we started discussing about Maven
> > Next Generations.
> > Clearly we needed to work on the pom, because over time we're facing more
> > and more limitations.
> > For (Maven) Central the Model 4.0.0 will be required pom format, there's
> > no discussion about that. So we needed a new architecture where there's a
> > local pom that is transformed to Model 4.0.0 or where it can be
> generated.
> > With the implementation of MNG-6656 and the improvement with MNG-6957
> > we've made the first and important steps based on pom transformation. If
> > this concept proofs itself, we can start thinking about enhancing the pom
> > model.
> >
> > When talking about Model 5.0.0 it looked like it would be great to
> > introduce it for Maven 5. There was even a period where we thought about
> > skipping Maven 4, just to sync the Model version with the Maven version.
> > However, we discovered that this would be a huge change, and that we
> would
> > probably need a couple of Maven 4 releases before moving to Maven 5.
> Maven
> > 4 would consist of preparation releases.
> > I've started writing the build/consumer to proof that the it is indeed
> > possible to separate the local pom from the distributed pom, even though
> > they both are currently still Model 4.0.0 compatible.
> > The original idea was:
> > Maven 3: build/consumer feature disabled by default
> > Maven 4: build/consumer feature enabled by default
> >
> > Maven 5: Model 5
> >
> > We were worried that this wouldn't give us enough feedback.
> > maven-integration-testing shows that build/consumer does work. There
> should
> > be enough trust to enable it by default, it shouldn't impact existing
> > projects (the last find by Michael was actually great. It demonstrated
> the
> > effect when using threads. The fix made sense and Maven was stable
> again).
> > But it is simply not enough. We need much more feedback.
> >
> > Meanwhile other improvements have been done, that has impact:
> > - new behavior of reactor commandline arguments
> > - upgrade of default versions of plugins per packaging type
> > - requiring Java 8
> > - Maven wrapper
> > - there's a PR waiting that will shift the logic of the
> > ProjectBuilder/ModelBuilder. As this is quite important for more people
> to
> > understand, I'll record a Q&A with Maarten+Martin soon and share it with
> > you.
> > There are probably more, but all these already defend my opinion about
> the
> > next Maven version.
> >
> > To me it is not a Maven 3 anymore, we're reached a point where we should
> > start calling it Maven 4.
> > The next release should probably have an alpha suffix, just to give users
> > the chance to do alpha testing.
> >
> > WDYT?
> > Robert
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release should a pre Maven 4.0.0

Romain Manni-Bucau
In reply to this post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Hmm, this is used by several testing tools and static analyzis tools so the
new pom should likely be at least next to this one but not replace it, like
META-INF/maven/{G}/{A}/pom.original.xml.
Flattening dependencies will likely speed up some tools parsing poms but
tools also parse parent gav and module list (for the part I know) to find
some structure so breaking that part is likely wrong, even for a consumed
pom, this is meta we should keep IMHO.
For instance, when Apache Beam moved from Maven to Gradle, they lost that
and broke some tooling companies had, it requires some effort to compensate
it so I think we shouldn't be that bad, in particular since it does not
cost much to keep it working.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>


Le jeu. 12 nov. 2020 à 22:43, Robert Scholte <[hidden email]> a
écrit :

> The pom next to the artifact will be correct and ready to be consumed.
> Only the /META-INF/maven/{G}/{A}/pom.xml will now be the local pom. If you
> make use of some new features this pom might be incomplete, but AFAIK there
> are only a few cases where this embedded pom is used.
>
> Robert
> On 12-11-2020 22:38:33, Romain Manni-Bucau <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Le jeu. 12 nov. 2020 à 22:14, Robert Scholte a
> écrit :
>
> > The discussion is first of all saying the next release should be
> > 4.0.0-alpha-1 (or something similar), so 3.6.3 was the last of the Maven
> 3
> > releases unless we need to backport security fixes.
> > What to add to that release is the next discussion.
> > Signing is only relevant for releases, but I think most companies don't
> > sign jars for their internal projects.
> > For those developers the missing features don't matter, but they can
> > benefit from a huge amount of improvements.
> >
>
> I disagree, a release is not only about signing but also letting others
> consume artifacts you produce.
> Having a proof it works for us is important before considering it can be a
> released feature (on by default).
> Also agree we shouldnt put a lot of features per release so maybe just the
> pom one in alpha-1? This ensures people can test what we propose and not
> only something else more shining.
>
>
> > Robert
> > On 12-11-2020 21:55:51, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > Hmm, if it does not work e2e then even an alpha is pointless cause nobody
> > can test it further than a hello world, was my point.
> >
> > Le jeu. 12 nov. 2020 à 21:01, Robert Scholte a
> > écrit :
> >
> > > I don't expect that signing will work with the the first alpha, but
> that
> > > shouldn't stop us of collecting feedback.
> > > Also we need to have a look at all plugins that do something with the
> > pom,
> > > like every packaging plugin, maven-source-plugin, maven-release-plugin
> to
> > > ensure the "right" pom is added.
> > >
> > > And for Maven 4.0.0 we shouldn't have milestone releases of plugins
> (even
> > > though they are stable).
> > > There's still enough work to reach 4.0.0, but most likely the first
> > alphas
> > > are already good enough for the majority.
> > >
> > > On 12-11-2020 20:45:09, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > > Did we already do mvn or mvn plugins (multimodules) release with the
> > > consumer/producer pom feature?
> > > If so +1 to do a v4 with this new feature "for us" and v5 with real
> user
> > > features and align it with the xsd.
> > >
> > > Le jeu. 12 nov. 2020 à 20:00, Robert Scholte a
> > > écrit :
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > It is already several years ago where we started discussing about
> Maven
> > > > Next Generations.
> > > > Clearly we needed to work on the pom, because over time we're facing
> > more
> > > > and more limitations.
> > > > For (Maven) Central the Model 4.0.0 will be required pom format,
> > there's
> > > > no discussion about that. So we needed a new architecture where
> > there's a
> > > > local pom that is transformed to Model 4.0.0 or where it can be
> > > generated.
> > > > With the implementation of MNG-6656 and the improvement with MNG-6957
> > > > we've made the first and important steps based on pom transformation.
> > If
> > > > this concept proofs itself, we can start thinking about enhancing the
> > pom
> > > > model.
> > > >
> > > > When talking about Model 5.0.0 it looked like it would be great to
> > > > introduce it for Maven 5. There was even a period where we thought
> > about
> > > > skipping Maven 4, just to sync the Model version with the Maven
> > version.
> > > > However, we discovered that this would be a huge change, and that we
> > > would
> > > > probably need a couple of Maven 4 releases before moving to Maven 5.
> > > Maven
> > > > 4 would consist of preparation releases.
> > > > I've started writing the build/consumer to proof that the it is
> indeed
> > > > possible to separate the local pom from the distributed pom, even
> > though
> > > > they both are currently still Model 4.0.0 compatible.
> > > > The original idea was:
> > > > Maven 3: build/consumer feature disabled by default
> > > > Maven 4: build/consumer feature enabled by default
> > > >
> > > > Maven 5: Model 5
> > > >
> > > > We were worried that this wouldn't give us enough feedback.
> > > > maven-integration-testing shows that build/consumer does work. There
> > > should
> > > > be enough trust to enable it by default, it shouldn't impact existing
> > > > projects (the last find by Michael was actually great. It
> demonstrated
> > > the
> > > > effect when using threads. The fix made sense and Maven was stable
> > > again).
> > > > But it is simply not enough. We need much more feedback.
> > > >
> > > > Meanwhile other improvements have been done, that has impact:
> > > > - new behavior of reactor commandline arguments
> > > > - upgrade of default versions of plugins per packaging type
> > > > - requiring Java 8
> > > > - Maven wrapper
> > > > - there's a PR waiting that will shift the logic of the
> > > > ProjectBuilder/ModelBuilder. As this is quite important for more
> people
> > > to
> > > > understand, I'll record a Q&A with Maarten+Martin soon and share it
> > with
> > > > you.
> > > > There are probably more, but all these already defend my opinion
> about
> > > the
> > > > next Maven version.
> > > >
> > > > To me it is not a Maven 3 anymore, we're reached a point where we
> > should
> > > > start calling it Maven 4.
> > > > The next release should probably have an alpha suffix, just to give
> > users
> > > > the chance to do alpha testing.
> > > >
> > > > WDYT?
> > > > Robert
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release should a pre Maven 4.0.0

michaelo
In reply to this post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Does this mean that we can finally drop deprecated stuff and even break
compat?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release should a pre Maven 4.0.0

michaelo
 From the top of my head:

* Remove release profile
* Remove plugin section in super POM
* Move Central out of Core

As well as a review of all consistency fixes to dependency resolution
done by Christian Schulte.

I also agree with maven-compat. This needs to go, currently not possible
due to MNG-6561.

Am 2020-11-13 um 18:11 schrieb Robert Scholte:

> I'm not going to say simply yes, it probably depends. Any specific things you have in mind?
> Also, I don't know what to do with maven-compat.
> I would prefer to remove it and introduce maven-compat3 as a bucket for classes that we don't want to use in Maven 4, but can still be used by plugins.
> Reusing the maven-compat artifactId with a different set of classes is most likely a recipe for disaster.
>
> Robert
> On 13-11-2020 17:53:47, Michael Osipov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Does this mean that we can finally drop deprecated stuff and even break
> compat?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release should a pre Maven 4.0.0

Hervé BOUTEMY
In reply to this post by Romain Manni-Bucau
Le vendredi 13 novembre 2020, 19:28:20 CET Michael Osipov a écrit :
> Am 2020-11-13 um 19:24 schrieb Robert Scholte:
> > Removing release profile should be combined with fail on missing/unknown
> > profile of MNG-6012
> Agreed, Karl just needs to complete his implementation.
>
> > Remove plugin section in super POM should be fine, now that Hervé has
> > added warnings for it.
> Correct.
2 remarks:
1. to better evaluate the impact, we are talking about default version for
antrun, assembly, dependency and release: the choice of removing that default
version or not can be done per-plugin
2. adding a warning if someone uses the version provided by super-pom was done
to permit keeping a default version in super-pom but warning that using it is
not the safest: then avoid bluntly removing the version

>
> > There should be a default repository: central. I guess you want to move it
> > to conf/settings.xml in the distribution.
> Exactly!
>
> > Robert
> >
> > On 13-11-2020 18:23:20, Michael Osipov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>From the top of my head:
> > * Remove release profile
> > * Remove plugin section in super POM
> > * Move Central out of Core
> >
> > As well as a review of all consistency fixes to dependency resolution
> > done by Christian Schulte.
> >
> > I also agree with maven-compat. This needs to go, currently not possible
> > due to MNG-6561.
> >
> > Am 2020-11-13 um 18:11 schrieb Robert Scholte:
> >> I'm not going to say simply yes, it probably depends. Any specific things
> >> you have in mind? Also, I don't know what to do with maven-compat.
> >> I would prefer to remove it and introduce maven-compat3 as a bucket for
> >> classes that we don't want to use in Maven 4, but can still be used by
> >> plugins. Reusing the maven-compat artifactId with a different set of
> >> classes is most likely a recipe for disaster.
> >>
> >> Robert
> >> On 13-11-2020 17:53:47, Michael Osipov wrote:
> >> Does this mean that we can finally drop deprecated stuff and even break
> >> compat?
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]





---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release should a pre Maven 4.0.0

Romain Manni-Bucau
Do we have some links/pointers on "removing plugins from parent pom"? Just
want to ensure it does not fall in user land but something internal.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> |  Blog
<https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog
<http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book
<https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance>


Le dim. 15 nov. 2020 à 17:03, Hervé BOUTEMY <[hidden email]> a
écrit :

> Le vendredi 13 novembre 2020, 19:28:20 CET Michael Osipov a écrit :
> > Am 2020-11-13 um 19:24 schrieb Robert Scholte:
> > > Removing release profile should be combined with fail on
> missing/unknown
> > > profile of MNG-6012
> > Agreed, Karl just needs to complete his implementation.
> >
> > > Remove plugin section in super POM should be fine, now that Hervé has
> > > added warnings for it.
> > Correct.
> 2 remarks:
> 1. to better evaluate the impact, we are talking about default version for
> antrun, assembly, dependency and release: the choice of removing that
> default
> version or not can be done per-plugin
> 2. adding a warning if someone uses the version provided by super-pom was
> done
> to permit keeping a default version in super-pom but warning that using it
> is
> not the safest: then avoid bluntly removing the version
>
> >
> > > There should be a default repository: central. I guess you want to
> move it
> > > to conf/settings.xml in the distribution.
> > Exactly!
> >
> > > Robert
> > >
> > > On 13-11-2020 18:23:20, Michael Osipov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >>From the top of my head:
> > > * Remove release profile
> > > * Remove plugin section in super POM
> > > * Move Central out of Core
> > >
> > > As well as a review of all consistency fixes to dependency resolution
> > > done by Christian Schulte.
> > >
> > > I also agree with maven-compat. This needs to go, currently not
> possible
> > > due to MNG-6561.
> > >
> > > Am 2020-11-13 um 18:11 schrieb Robert Scholte:
> > >> I'm not going to say simply yes, it probably depends. Any specific
> things
> > >> you have in mind? Also, I don't know what to do with maven-compat.
> > >> I would prefer to remove it and introduce maven-compat3 as a bucket
> for
> > >> classes that we don't want to use in Maven 4, but can still be used by
> > >> plugins. Reusing the maven-compat artifactId with a different set of
> > >> classes is most likely a recipe for disaster.
> > >>
> > >> Robert
> > >> On 13-11-2020 17:53:47, Michael Osipov wrote:
> > >> Does this mean that we can finally drop deprecated stuff and even
> break
> > >> compat?
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release should a pre Maven 4.0.0

Romain Manni-Bucau
Le dim. 15 nov. 2020 à 19:36, Michael Osipov <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Am 2020-11-15 um 17:26 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
> > Do we have some links/pointers on "removing plugins from parent pom"?
> Just
> > want to ensure it does not fall in user land but something internal.
>
> There is a JIRA issue and the section has been explicitly marked as
> deprecated for years.
>

Do you have the link? If we speak of <plugins> in a "packaging=pom"
pom.xml, ensure it was not deprecated for anyone except a few maven dev :s.
This is also something we want to keep I guess and not replace directly by
composition in all cases which duplicates poms for nothing, this is why I
ask to precise that point.


>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release should a pre Maven 4.0.0

michaelo
Am 2020-11-15 um 19:51 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:

> Le dim. 15 nov. 2020 à 19:36, Michael Osipov <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>
>> Am 2020-11-15 um 17:26 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
>>> Do we have some links/pointers on "removing plugins from parent pom"?
>> Just
>>> want to ensure it does not fall in user land but something internal.
>>
>> There is a JIRA issue and the section has been explicitly marked as
>> deprecated for years.
>>
>
> Do you have the link? If we speak of <plugins> in a "packaging=pom"
> pom.xml, ensure it was not deprecated for anyone except a few maven dev :s.
> This is also something we want to keep I guess and not replace directly by
> composition in all cases which duplicates poms for nothing, this is why I
> ask to precise that point.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6054


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [DISCUSS] Next release should a pre Maven 4.0.0

Romain Manni-Bucau
Thanks and +1

Le dim. 15 nov. 2020 à 20:01, Michael Osipov <[hidden email]> a écrit :

> Am 2020-11-15 um 19:51 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
> > Le dim. 15 nov. 2020 à 19:36, Michael Osipov <[hidden email]> a
> écrit :
> >
> >> Am 2020-11-15 um 17:26 schrieb Romain Manni-Bucau:
> >>> Do we have some links/pointers on "removing plugins from parent pom"?
> >> Just
> >>> want to ensure it does not fall in user land but something internal.
> >>
> >> There is a JIRA issue and the section has been explicitly marked as
> >> deprecated for years.
> >>
> >
> > Do you have the link? If we speak of <plugins> in a "packaging=pom"
> > pom.xml, ensure it was not deprecated for anyone except a few maven dev
> :s.
> > This is also something we want to keep I guess and not replace directly
> by
> > composition in all cases which duplicates poms for nothing, this is why I
> > ask to precise that point.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6054
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>