Are you going to roll this back? No one can stage anything until you do.
On 19-May-08, at 2:50 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 20/05/2008, at 7:34 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
We have been releasing significantly faster with the last couple
releases, and if Wagon remains compatible why would you need to use
a different version?
The ability to control the version from the POM (both forwards and
backwards) is the main thing I have in mind. It's not a huge issue,
which is why I think total reversion is an option, but worth
checking nonetheless. What I had in mind is only a minor change - to
filter the wagons again from plugins, so that all references come
from the extension container rather than the core (which will then
go to the core if there's no extension). The 2.0.8 behaviour was to
not load an extension that was in the core (due to the filtering).
Making changes to the artifact filtering is pretty risky business
in 2.0.x.
Yes, I understand that given I obviously missed the stage use case
last time. I'll add simpler integration tests to cover these.
- Brett
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come
and sit softly on your shoulder ...
-- Thoreau
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
