12:09 p.m.
Rafael, I actually lobbied for this because it makes maintenance easier
if you only have to make updates in the root pom in one place. However,
Pete is right, as always. :-)
On 01/28/2013 11:39 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
We want to make it easy to copy a quickstart into a developer's
own project. POM inheritance breaks this :-(
On 28 Jan 2013, at 16:40, Rafael Benevides wrote:
> Talking about inheritance, in that case, Quickstarts shouldn't avoid to
> have it's own properties and use only those on root pom ?
>
> Em 28-01-2013 14:33, Pete Muir escreveu:
>> Yeah. it may be the POM is the right place, it can just get confusing, as people
want to inherit from it.
>>
>> On 25 Jan 2013, at 18:21, Sande Gilda wrote:
>>
>>> James, that was very helpful. We need a place to store the versions and
>>> use for reference.
>>>
>>> On 01/25/2013 12:49 PM, James Perkins wrote:
>>>> This is initially why I added the properties to the parent pom. They
>>>> were added there so you could look at one place for consistence of the
>>>> property naming and version alignment.
>>>>
>>>> On 01/25/2013 04:48 AM, Sande Gilda wrote:
>>>>> For now, I use that information when reviewing new quickstart
>>>>> submissions to verify they are using the correct versions. If that
>>>>> disappears, I'll have to search through the other quickstart pom
files
>>>>> to find one that uses a particular artifact to know what the latest
>>>>> version is.
>>>>>
>>>>> So until that information is somewhere easy to find, please don't
remove
>>>>> it! :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/25/2013 02:29 AM, Pete Muir wrote:
>>>>>> It does, but lets sort out the tool first!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24 Jan 2013, at 23:40, Rafael Benevides wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was looking at Quickstarts root pom.xml and realized that
there are
>>>>>>> several Maven properties that I think that should be only on
each
>>>>>>> project's pom.xml. Is that right ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If so, I believe that we should remove this properties and
leave to the
>>>>>>> script/tooling that we're planning, the responsibility of
managing this
>>>>>>> properties, specially BOMs and plugins versions besides
other
>>>>>>> verifications.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I basically want to know if that makes sense, so I can
open a pull
>>>>>>> request with this properties removed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rafael Benevides | Senior Software Engineer
>>>>>>> Red Hat Brazil
>>>>>>> +55-61-9269-6576
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community
collaboration.
>>>>>>> See how it works at redhat.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> jdf-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> jdf-dev mailing list
>>>>>> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> jdf-dev mailing list
>>>>> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> jdf-dev mailing list
>>> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> jdf-dev mailing list
>> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev
> _______________________________________________
> jdf-dev mailing list
> jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev
_______________________________________________
jdf-dev mailing list
jdf-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jdf-dev