On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:52:37 +0100 Anders Hammar <and...@hammar.net> wrote:
> Your call. > If we re-roll, the MOJO-2004 should be deleted and that work be > incorporated in MOJO-2002. Ok let's re-roll then. > > /Anders > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:46 AM, Tony Chemit <che...@codelutin.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 17 Jan 2014 10:43:15 +0100 > > Anders Hammar <and...@hammar.net> wrote: > > > > > I'm now changing my vote to 0. > > > > > > I'm not happy about the incorrect/confusing comments but the parent > > should > > > work. > > > > So we can just re-roll another release (I just realize I did not add (take > > 2) in the vote email title ;)). > > > > It will be then ready for next week, I can survive this ;) > > > > I cancel the vote ? > > > > > > > > > > > > The release notes has changed and there are now four documented issues > > > fixed for this release. > > > > > > /Anders > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Anders Hammar <and...@hammar.net> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > The vote mail says that there were 2 solved issues, but the release > > notes > > > >> > lists 3. > > > >> > MOJO-2002 is marked "won't fix" but there was actually some change > > > >> applied > > > >> > which is wrong. > > > >> Does it really matters ? for people using the mojo-parent I don't > > think > > > >> so. > > > >> > > > >> I mark a issue as *Won't fix*? so for me 2 issues are solved, is this > > > >> wrong? > > > >> > > > > > > > > The thing is that MOJO-2002 does have a fix applied. Maven 2.2.1 is > > now a > > > > requirement for building mojo-parent, so it shouldn't be marked as > > "won't > > > > fix". Also, if a ticket is marked as "won't fix" it should not have a > > fix > > > > version assigned as it then is listed in the release notes (which > > confuses > > > > people). > > > > > > > > > > > >> > I guess we could change MOJO-2002 to "fixed" and then create a > > separate > > > >> > ticket to fix the remaining unwanted changes for the next version. > > > >> However, > > > >> > we would then have a change in what phase the enforcer plugin runs > > > >> which I > > > >> > don't know is intentional (although makes sense). The latter could > > be > > > >> > handled by creating a new ticket for this change. > > > >> > > > >> Could you then do this I am a bit lost with what you want to do?. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Ok, I'll do this. > > > > > > > > /Anders > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> I would just want to use a new mojo-parent with correct MOJO-1946 > > > >> > > > >> thanks, > > > >> > > > >> tony. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Tony Chemit > > > >> -------------------- > > > >> tél: +33 (0) 2 40 50 29 28 > > > >> http://www.codelutin.com > > > >> email: che...@codelutin.com > > > >> twitter: https://twitter.com/tchemit > > > >> > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > > >> > > > >> http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Tony Chemit > > -------------------- > > tél: +33 (0) 2 40 50 29 28 > > http://www.codelutin.com > > email: che...@codelutin.com > > twitter: https://twitter.com/tchemit > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > > > > > -- Tony Chemit -------------------- tél: +33 (0) 2 40 50 29 28 http://www.codelutin.com email: che...@codelutin.com twitter: https://twitter.com/tchemit --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
