On 08/05/17 19:38, Robert Scholte wrote:
> So we have this plugin, which has been released lately as requested by
> the community.
> It has been released as a 3.x, so it now requires Maven3 and with this
> major release we used this opportunity to break compatibility in case
> there are parameters we don't want to use anymore.
with a major number we break compatibility which we have decided cause
otherwise we can't go further any step...
I've taken a look into the issue comment which is from my point of view
useless...cause it's claiming about compatility which is intended to
change with 3.X apart from that i does not give more details why etc.
> So I think we made quite some people happy now that things are working
> much more according to Maven default behavior. However, other have
> issues to use the archetype. Sometimes it is because they are using
> deprecated parameters (or use parameters which should have been removed
> as well), others have a local setup which now requires to add the
> repository to their settings.xml.
That sounds like wrong setup's etc. which we had thought about several
times and we don't want to support it any longer with release 3.X ....
The users need to learn we will change things and sometimes we need to
break things with major version changes...if users don't like the
changes they need to stuck with older versions...
> I still think that ARCHETYPE-439 is valid, so I'd prefer not to
> revert. Instead I hope we can find a solution which will fit better for
> the most.
it is valid Absolutely no doubt about it...If people don't like the new
release they have to stuck with the older version...that's it...
Apart from that you will always have people which complain about a
change cause they don't like to change anything...(I'm making this
experience several times on the job as well)..
> I can think of the following solutions:
> 1. Continue with taken decision and further improve usage without extra
+1 for this...
> 2. Find somebody willing to maintain the plugin at ASF
> 3. Donate the plugin
> 4. Revert
> #3 is a serious option, because it seems that within the team there's
> nobody willing to maintain the plugin, probably due to other Maven
> sub-projects which have a higher priority.
The later is more the truth...cause we have many things to do at the
If someone has a problem it there are pull request which can be
made...or if really necessary a fork is also possible...
The mantenaince has been done over the time seemed to be fine...and keep
the plugin here...