I have been using the snapshot for a while now, I can help to release
alpha-3

+1 from me

-D


On 6/5/07, Trygve Laugstøl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Steven Rowe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just started using the appassembler-maven-plugin and really
> appreciate its capabilities.  Thanks to all who have contributed.
>
> I have some applications that expect file/directory paths as cmdline
> arguments.  Relative paths fail with the scripts generated by
> appassembler-maven-plugin v1.0-alpha-2, because the current directory is
> changed to the BASEDIR - i.e. the parent of the location of the script -
> before invoking the JVM.
>
> Looking at the current trunk versions of the
> appassembler-maven-plugin/resources/.../script/*BinTemplate files, and
> according to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MOJO-565 , this has been
fixed.
>
> Is there a release schedule for appassembler-maven-plugin?  (I assume
> not, as these things tend to go...)
>
> Here's my (totally, like, non-binding) +1 for releasing v1.0-alpha-3.

We've been meaning to do the alpha-3 release for a while before we start
working on the new stuff that we want to put in it. Currently and for
the next two weeks I will be too busy at work to check it and publish a
release but if some other comitter is using the plugin, feel free to
test it (there is a serious need for unit tests) and put it out for a
vote. IIRC there is only one show stopper right now: MOJO-806.

> I can see from JIRA and fisheye that there are other new capabilities
> being baked in, and I'd be cool with waiting until these stabilize, of
> course.  Is there anything I can do to help?

Implement them :) The problem right now is that we haven't written down
our ideas so it can be kinda hard to do it the way we want to do it.

> Separate question: why are the script templates located under "daemon"
> in the resources/ directory?  Although they could be used that way, I
> suppose, there is nothing about the generated scripts that requires that
> they be run as daemons (i.e., processes that run in the background and
> can live beyond their parent process's lifespan).

I can't remember the specific reason, but probably related to the fact
that it did start as a daemon thing once upon the time. I'll take a look
the next time I'm working on it.

--
Trygve

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list please visit:

   http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email


Reply via email to