Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Resolve g:a:s #109

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Resolve g:a:s #109

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

eddumelendez
Copy link

@eddumelendez eddumelendez commented Nov 26, 2016

Previous to this commit, dependency section could use 'g:a:v'. This
commit allows to use 'g:a:s' which is valid when version is defined in
dependencyManagement section.

See gh-108

Copy link
Contributor

@mkristian mkristian left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

so you disallow versions with value of 'test', 'compile, etc and use them as scope instead. sounds like a good idea for me.

Previous to this commit, dependency section could use 'g:a:v'. This
commit allows to use 'g:a:s' which is valid when version is defined in
dependencyManagement section.

See gh-108
@mosabua
Copy link
Member

mosabua commented Nov 27, 2016

If we merge this ... should we make this a consistent behaviour across the different dialect instead of just having it in the Groovy one only?

@jdillon
Copy link
Contributor

jdillon commented Nov 27, 2016

Should be careful not to make a hundred different ways to do the same thing, more options often can reduce the clarity and comprehension of a system.

There is also a competing desire for blocks for scope which don't quite line up with this change #52

Folks should also remember this is groovy, so i your personal needs are for something different than the dsl that is there, you can easily define a closure or customize how the builder is used w/o having to mutate the dsl for everyone.

@mkristian
Copy link
Contributor

need to mention that the ruby DSL offers a scope block as it can easily group dependencies of the same scope with it.

@mosabua
Copy link
Member

mosabua commented Nov 28, 2016

Scope blocks seem a much cleaner and better solution than the proposed change here. Also you could still have the desired behaviour if you spell out the coordinates (GA and scope basically) more in the dependency I think.

So in essence I think @jdillon is right about keeping it simple and not introducing yet another way.

@mosabua
Copy link
Member

mosabua commented Jun 27, 2018

I am closing this as we (imho) agreed about not doing this.

@mosabua mosabua closed this Jun 27, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants