i'm fine for 2.1, for 2.0.6 may be too risky
What about this use case for transitive dependencyManagement? has been tested?
A -> B -> C -> D
C depends on D 1.0
B has D 2.0 in dependencyManagement, no D in dependencies
A should get D 2.0
On 3/15/07, Jason van Zyl <
jason@...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After working with it a little this week I would like to propose to
> make MNG-1577 behavior introduced the default. Builds are completely
> and totally unpredictable without this behavior. The behavior in
> 2.0.5 is fundamentally broken. To are totally prey to any dependency
> introduced by a dependency which makes no sense and completely
> counter intuitive. I stabilized a massive build this week simply by
> using the behavior present in the 2.0.x branch. I don't think we're
> doing anyone any favors leaving the old behavior in. After watching a
> disaster be recovered by using this new behavior I feel that the
> patch should go in as is and become the default behavior. This puts
> the user in control which is the way it should be.
>
> I propose we make this the default behavior. Can anyone think of a
> case where this degree of control would break an existing build?
>
> This patch saved my bacon this week, I think this behavior makes a
> world of difference to users.
>
> Jason.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail:
dev-help@...
>
>
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
dev-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail:
dev-help@...
