Thank you all for the time and effort put into new Maven releases. As a dedicated user of the tool it is much appreciated.
I see that multiple modelVersions support has made it into the 2.2 release plan. That makes me hope that some sort of global dependency exclusion mechanism has a chance of making it into the 2.x train. I'm currently thinking about http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3196 which would be extremely helpful in our current corp project, but feel free to revisit http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-1977 as well :-) WDYT? -- - Jan Fredrik Wedén On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:14 AM, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Maven+2.2.0+Release+Plan > > Brian Fox wrote: >> >> Sounds good to me >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Sep 3, 2008, at 5:35 PM, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Let's start another page for 2.2 features, since this one is in the >>> pre-planning stages still. Until we have a concrete strategy for >>> implementation including a design doc, I don't feel comfortable putting it >>> on such a near time horizon. >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> Brian E. Fox wrote: >>>> >>>> The only thing I feel we need to start looking at soon is an xml parser >>>> that can deal with newer models and not freak. This is probably related >>>> in some way to the refactoring happening in 3.0... but I know that 2.0.x >>>> can't handle newer models and the sooner we start moving to a more >>>> flexible parser, the easier the eventual migration to 3.0 will be. >>>> I'm not sure this needs to be in 2.1, but maybe on the list for 2.2. >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, >>>> September 03, 2008 2:31 PM >>>> To: Maven Developers List >>>> Subject: Re: Maven 2.1.0 GA Plan >>>> I've included this as M2 to give us a clean base in M1: >>>> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Maven+2.1.0+Release+Plan >>>> Let me know what you think. >>>> Dennis Lundberg wrote: >>>>> >>>>> John Casey wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>> >>>>>> So, it seems that we're all in agreement about the rough outline for >>>>>> 2.1.x and beyond. I've renamed the current RC branch to be >>>> >>>> 2.1.0-M1-RC >>>>>> >>>>>> to make this the first milestone toward some as-yet-undetermined >>>> >>>> feature >>>>>> >>>>>> list for 2.1.0. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, let's talk about that feature list. From earlier comments, I've >>>>>> gathered that the following may be good targets to include for 2.1.0: >>>>>> >>>>>> - Dan's reactor changes >>>>>> - Parallel downloads >>>>>> - PGP stuff >>>>>> - MNG-624 and related issues/feature enhancements (parent versioning, >>>>>> right?) >>>>>> >>>>>> What I don't know is what state of maturity each of these is in, and >>>> >>>> on >>>>>> >>>>>> what timeline they can be stabilized. Do the relevant developers have >>>>>> enough time to finish implementing, testing, and documenting each >>>>>> feature, so we could get a 2.1.0 GA out in, say 6 weeks or so? Maybe >>>> >>>> a >>>>>> >>>>>> better approach would be to try for a new milestone release that >>>>>> contains the final result of each new feature (with latent parts of >>>> >>>> the >>>>>> >>>>>> rest, as we work on them), such that the 2.1.0 GA will contain all >>>> >>>> the >>>>>> >>>>>> new features in their complete forms, with any regressions identified >>>>>> fixed and incorporated? >>>>>> >>>>>> I haven't found the pertinent Confluence pages describing the above >>>>>> features yet...maybe they don't exist or maybe I haven't looked hard >>>>>> enough yet, but we'll need to collect the list somewhere that we can >>>>>> make it public going forward, and then publish that release plan URL >>>> >>>> on >>>>>> >>>>>> the Maven site. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are there other things that we can fit into this sort of timeframe? >>>> >>>> Is >>>>>> >>>>>> this too much? It's my strong preference that we try to cap this >>>> >>>> release >>>>>> >>>>>> cycle at two months, so I guess this means taking the list of "nearly >>>>>> there" features and determining whether we'll have the time to >>>> >>>> stabilize >>>>>> >>>>>> them for inclusion, given our current availability. >>>>> >>>>> With a timeframe of 2 months I would like to see Doxia beta-1 included >>>>> in the core. This is tracked in JIRA as >>>>> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3602 >>>>> >>>>> In the discussions surrounding that issue it was determined there >>>> >>>> would >>>>> >>>>> not be enough exposure of Doxia beta-1 until the next release (at that >>>>> time). But with the new timeframe for the 2.1 release we should be >>>> >>>> able >>>>> >>>>> to get good testing of Doxia beta-1. >>>>> >>>>>> Of course, once we settle the 2.1.0 release plan, we can start >>>> >>>> talking >>>>>> >>>>>> about what we're going to do for 2.2, 2.3, etc. As long as we keep >>>>>> things rolling, there's no reason anyone needs to feel overly rushed >>>>>> about getting a particular feature in a particular release...it >>>> >>>> should >>>>>> >>>>>> NOT be your only chance. :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> What does anyone else think? >>>>>> >>>>>> -john >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> John Casey >>> Developer, PMC Member - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org) >>> Blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/buildchimp/ >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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] >> > > -- > John Casey > Developer, PMC Member - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org) > Blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/buildchimp/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
