Update to use BOM #273
Update to use BOM #273
Conversation
pom.xml
Outdated
| <version>5</version> | ||
| <scope>import</scope> | ||
| <type>pom</type> | ||
| </dependency> | ||
| <dependency> | ||
| <groupId>org.jenkins-ci</groupId> | ||
| <artifactId>annotation-indexer</artifactId> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note: probably superseded by use of core BOM in 4.x parent. @jtnord could confirm
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know what this means.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That you would pick up https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/blob/c376ffe0a41ff4a2100d41ca679a2c7995557dfd/bom/pom.xml#L168-L172 if you updated to the beta parent and got jenkinsci/plugin-pom#269. Can ignore for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should not be required in latest parent pom
| @@ -26,7 +26,6 @@ | |||
| <hpi.compatibleSinceVersion>2.2.0</hpi.compatibleSinceVersion> | |||
| <java.level>8</java.level> | |||
| <jenkins.version>2.150.3</jenkins.version> | |||
| <scm-api.version>2.6.3</scm-api.version> | |||
| <hamcrest.version>2.2</hamcrest.version> | |||
| <useBeta>true</useBeta> | |||
| <jcasc.version>1.35</jcasc.version> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So, should we wait on this change until that pr is resolved?
Is there way to determine this without careful consideration of each dependency? I removed structs and everything still built fine, but it sound like I should put it back? |
Yes but I would not worry about it. If and when we strengthen the parent POM to require explicit dependencies for types used during compilation (as for example the Maven harness for NetBeans modules does), you would be informed via build errors of issues. For now this is just stylistic. |
pom.xml
Outdated
| @@ -26,7 +26,6 @@ | |||
| <hpi.compatibleSinceVersion>2.2.0</hpi.compatibleSinceVersion> | |||
| <java.level>8</java.level> | |||
| <jenkins.version>2.150.3</jenkins.version> | |||
| <scm-api.version>2.6.3</scm-api.version> | |||
| <hamcrest.version>2.2</hamcrest.version> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is possible this is obsolete, too. Check whether you can delete all mention of Hamcrest.
Leave it to the bom to decide.
|
I was too slow and need to go back and fix the merge. |
No description provided.