My only comment is that I'm a lot more confident applying patches when a test project or updated test project comes with them. That way I can easily verify all is ok.
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:23:34 +0200, Martin van den Bemt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Just want to get this of my back :) > > I know time is limiting, so this is not criticism.. > Talking about http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MPJNLP-13 > It is in JIRA that long, but it is holding me back to do more > development on this, since a lot of things are not supported yet in this > plugin, which we need. (I like to send in my patches / commits in > relation to one problem, so you can more easily see what is contained in > the change and assess the risks involved of patching). > I try to have my patches exactly according all rules set by the maven > projects (style, updated changes, updated xdocs), which takes some extra > time to get correct. > > Since I hit "critical" paths most of the time (I am taking care of > making sure people can release the system easily, but I don't do the > release myself), I am no hitting problems with the waiting patches. > > The only solution without demanding things from the maven people I can > think of is (permanently) forking plugins when there is something wrong > with it and it is critical for me to have the change do asap. This will > save me a lot of time, since I don't have to send patches, wait for them > to be applied, send in the next batch of patches, explaining to my > collegues what they have to do to get things working again, you probably > get the picture.. > > Any feedback would be appreciated. > > -- > Mvgr, > Martin > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
