Feature Archiva in ApacheCon
Hi Everyone, In the upcoming ApacheCon US 2008, the ASF will be offering a program where in different ASF projects will be featured (each slot will have a 4hr duration). I would like to submit some materials for Archiva for this program. Below is a draft I made of what we could present for Archiva. Comments, suggestions and violent reactions are welcome :-) The first part would be a brief background on Archiva -- when and how it all started, what it does and how it can be used in the enterprise. The second part of the presentation would be a short demonstration of how Archiva works so as to give the audience a glimpse of what it looks like and what it does. The third part of the presentation would tackle the current status of the community and the current development of the project. This would include an introduction of the current contributors/committers of the project, some statistics on mailing list traffic, schedule and status of the next release and what to look forward to in the release. The fourth part would be a discussion on what the future plans are for Archiva. This will cover the roadmap, design discussions happening on the lists and the irc, and ideas being bounced around. The last part would be a presentation by one or two contributors/committers of the project on what they are currently working on. The last two parts can be an interactive discussion with the audience where questions, comments and suggestions are entertained. Thanks, Deng
Re: Feature Archiva in ApacheCon
On 31/03/2008, at 5:31 PM, Maria Odea Ching wrote: Hi Everyone, In the upcoming ApacheCon US 2008, the ASF will be offering a program where in different ASF projects will be featured (each slot will have a 4hr duration). I would like to submit some materials for Archiva for this program. Below is a draft I made of what we could present for Archiva. Comments, suggestions and violent reactions are welcome :-) Sounds good :) The first part would be a brief background on Archiva -- when and how it all started, what it does and how it can be used in the enterprise. The second part of the presentation would be a short demonstration of how Archiva works so as to give the audience a glimpse of what it looks like and what it does. I wonder if we just blend that into one introduction, depending on who is present? If they've all seen it, maybe the demo isn't needed. The third part of the presentation would tackle the current status of the community and the current development of the project. This would include an introduction of the current contributors/committers of the project, some statistics on mailing list traffic, schedule and status of the next release and what to look forward to in the release. I think this will be particularly helpful - and maybe how to get involved, where help is needed most, etc.? The fourth part would be a discussion on what the future plans are for Archiva. This will cover the roadmap, design discussions happening on the lists and the irc, and ideas being bounced around. The last part would be a presentation by one or two contributors/ committers of the project on what they are currently working on. The last two parts can be an interactive discussion with the audience where questions, comments and suggestions are entertained. This could probably take up a good half of the time if we have a few people in there - I think this is the best bit :) - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: [2.0.9 RC5]
Hi Brian, no issued encountered on a selection of builds wrt to 2.0.8. Cheers Brian E. Fox wrote: This RC has the following changes over RC4: *Webdav 1.0-beta-2 instead of beta-1 (This fixes James' issue) *The webdav extension version that is bundled in core can be overridden by an extension element, thus no longer locking in the users. This plays a little with the classloading so we should rerun all previous tests to make sure nothing new is broken. FWIW, I used the latest RC5-Snapshot to build the official RC5 release and had no issues. *MNG-3221 has been rolled back and fixed in a different way that specifically targets just the report plugins in the forked lifecycles. This should correct the issues seen by Nicolas and Sejal Those are all the known issues in RC4. We had some issues in the past with site plugin compat so we should try to get some coverage in that area as well. Binaries are here: http://people.apache.org/~brianf/staging-repository/org/apache/maven/apa che-maven/2.0.9-RC5/ Thank you everyone for the ongoing testing assistance and regression fixing. I am confident that 2.0.9 is going to bring a new level of quality to the project. We'll see if I still feel that way after we let the users whack at it, but it will be worth it in the end. Once we achieve this level it will be easier to maintain it going forward with more frequent releases and closer attention to how we fix issues along with good ITs to avoid regressions. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release maven plugins parent 11 (take 2)
I locked down the version of the javadoc plugin because maven-parent uses 2.3. +1 Cheers, Vincent 2008/3/28, Dennis Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Another try to get the latest version of maven-source-plugin into our toolchain and use the (even more) recently released maven-plugin-plugin 2.4.1, I'd like to release the plugins parent r642413 as version 11. Source: https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/plugins/trunk/pom.xml?r1=587343r2=642413diff_format=h https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/plugins/trunk/src/site/site.xml?r1=538755r2=630637diff_format=h SNAPSHOT: A SNAPSHOT has been uploaded as maven-plugins-11-20080328.223419-5.pom The vote will be open for 72 hours. +1 from me -- Dennis Lundberg - 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]
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven Eclipse plugin version 2.5.1
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 2:37 AM, Arnaud HERITIER [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Since the 2.5 release we did 10 days ago, we solved 3 annoying issues: * [MECLIPSE-266] - plugin applies java facet to ear project * [MECLIPSE-411] - manifest property usage is only for ogsi maifests * [MECLIPSE-413] - EclipseOSGiManifestWriter uses the artifact id and not the EclipseProjectName We also added a new feature : * [MECLIPSE-405] - to-maven target should allow to strip qualifier when creating artifacts from osgi bundles There are still a lot of issues left in JIRA : http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=11133status=1 Staging repo : http://people.apache.org/~aheritier/stage/repo/http://people.apache.org/%7Eaheritier/stage/repo/ Haven't tried the staged plugin itself, but building trunk doesn't work for me. http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MECLIPSE-416 I am looking into the problems to find more information. Results : Failed tests: testProject33(org.apache.maven.plugin.eclipse.EclipsePluginTest) Tests in error: testProject16(org.apache.maven.plugin.eclipse.EclipsePluginTest) testProject17(org.apache.maven.plugin.eclipse.EclipsePluginTest) testMECLIPSE_56_encoding(org.apache.maven.plugin.eclipse.EclipsePluginTest ) Tests run: 91, Failures: 1, Errors: 3, Skipped: 0 [INFO] [ERROR] BUILD FAILURE [INFO] J
Velocity verbosity
Hiya, how can we get the default behavior of plugins which use velocity to be less verbose? I see muck like this which I'd rather not: snip [INFO] Setting property: classpath.resource.loader.class = 'org.codehaus.plexus.velocity.ContextClassLoaderResourceLoader'. [INFO] Setting property: velocimacro.messages.on = 'false'. [INFO] Setting property: resource.loader = 'classpath'. [INFO] Setting property: resource.manager.logwhenfound = 'false'. /snip Can we get these logged as DEBUG? And how? --jason - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [2.0.9 RC5]
+1 here, seems to be working well for the things I've been building. -john On Mar 28, 2008, at 9:25 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote: This RC has the following changes over RC4: *Webdav 1.0-beta-2 instead of beta-1 (This fixes James' issue) *The webdav extension version that is bundled in core can be overridden by an extension element, thus no longer locking in the users. This plays a little with the classloading so we should rerun all previous tests to make sure nothing new is broken. FWIW, I used the latest RC5-Snapshot to build the official RC5 release and had no issues. *MNG-3221 has been rolled back and fixed in a different way that specifically targets just the report plugins in the forked lifecycles. This should correct the issues seen by Nicolas and Sejal Those are all the known issues in RC4. We had some issues in the past with site plugin compat so we should try to get some coverage in that area as well. Binaries are here: http://people.apache.org/~brianf/staging-repository/org/apache/ maven/apa che-maven/2.0.9-RC5/ Thank you everyone for the ongoing testing assistance and regression fixing. I am confident that 2.0.9 is going to bring a new level of quality to the project. We'll see if I still feel that way after we let the users whack at it, but it will be worth it in the end. Once we achieve this level it will be easier to maintain it going forward with more frequent releases and closer attention to how we fix issues along with good ITs to avoid regressions. --Brian --- John Casey Committer and PMC Member, Apache Maven mail: jdcasey at commonjava dot org blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/john rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/ejlife/john
maven vs openmake mesiter
I came across OpenMake's meister over the weekend and wondered if anyone on this list has any experience with or any comparison with Maven? I was just curious what the maven community's impression/response would be because they claim to have maven-like features, but they also claim to go above and beyond maven in flexibility and features. http://www.openmakesoftware.com/Maven-VS-Meister/
Re: maven vs openmake mesiter
I have something written but it's not very nice. But we're obviously a threat as they make comparisons to us. A victim of our own success. I've also meant to follow up on when they started using the term Mojo which definitely confuses people. For the sister Maven project over at Codehaus called Mojo has been around quite a long time. So I just didn't want to be disappointed and I'm hoping that they didn't do it to confuse users. I am assuming not but I haven't looked up the dates. I will try to remove the barbs from my write-up, as their marketing I frankly find distasteful. But I'll try to be objective and publish it. On 31-Mar-08, at 2:18 PM, Jason Chaffee wrote: I came across OpenMake's meister over the weekend and wondered if anyone on this list has any experience with or any comparison with Maven? I was just curious what the maven community's impression/response would be because they claim to have maven-like features, but they also claim to go above and beyond maven in flexibility and features. http://www.openmakesoftware.com/Maven-VS-Meister/ Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it is going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kind of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt. -- Robert Pirzig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [2.0.9 RC5]
I hate holding things up but I didn't get a chance to run it through the ringer today. Most likely I should be able to do so tomorrow and if everything passes you'll get my go ahead as well :) On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:36 PM, John Casey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 here, seems to be working well for the things I've been building. -john On Mar 28, 2008, at 9:25 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote: This RC has the following changes over RC4: *Webdav 1.0-beta-2 instead of beta-1 (This fixes James' issue) *The webdav extension version that is bundled in core can be overridden by an extension element, thus no longer locking in the users. This plays a little with the classloading so we should rerun all previous tests to make sure nothing new is broken. FWIW, I used the latest RC5-Snapshot to build the official RC5 release and had no issues. *MNG-3221 has been rolled back and fixed in a different way that specifically targets just the report plugins in the forked lifecycles. This should correct the issues seen by Nicolas and Sejal Those are all the known issues in RC4. We had some issues in the past with site plugin compat so we should try to get some coverage in that area as well. Binaries are here: http://people.apache.org/~brianf/staging-repository/org/apache/http://people.apache.org/%7Ebrianf/staging-repository/org/apache/ maven/apa che-maven/2.0.9-RC5/ Thank you everyone for the ongoing testing assistance and regression fixing. I am confident that 2.0.9 is going to bring a new level of quality to the project. We'll see if I still feel that way after we let the users whack at it, but it will be worth it in the end. Once we achieve this level it will be easier to maintain it going forward with more frequent releases and closer attention to how we fix issues along with good ITs to avoid regressions. --Brian --- John Casey Committer and PMC Member, Apache Maven mail: jdcasey at commonjava dot org blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/john rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/ejlife/john -- Justice is nothing more than that which is in the greatest self-interest of the largest portion of the population.
RE: [2.0.9 RC5]
No hold up, I sent RC5 to the user list as well. -Original Message- From: Sejal Patel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:50 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: [2.0.9 RC5] I hate holding things up but I didn't get a chance to run it through the ringer today. Most likely I should be able to do so tomorrow and if everything passes you'll get my go ahead as well :) On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:36 PM, John Casey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 here, seems to be working well for the things I've been building. -john On Mar 28, 2008, at 9:25 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote: This RC has the following changes over RC4: *Webdav 1.0-beta-2 instead of beta-1 (This fixes James' issue) *The webdav extension version that is bundled in core can be overridden by an extension element, thus no longer locking in the users. This plays a little with the classloading so we should rerun all previous tests to make sure nothing new is broken. FWIW, I used the latest RC5-Snapshot to build the official RC5 release and had no issues. *MNG-3221 has been rolled back and fixed in a different way that specifically targets just the report plugins in the forked lifecycles. This should correct the issues seen by Nicolas and Sejal Those are all the known issues in RC4. We had some issues in the past with site plugin compat so we should try to get some coverage in that area as well. Binaries are here: http://people.apache.org/~brianf/staging-repository/org/apache/http://p eople.apache.org/%7Ebrianf/staging-repository/org/apache/ maven/apa che-maven/2.0.9-RC5/ Thank you everyone for the ongoing testing assistance and regression fixing. I am confident that 2.0.9 is going to bring a new level of quality to the project. We'll see if I still feel that way after we let the users whack at it, but it will be worth it in the end. Once we achieve this level it will be easier to maintain it going forward with more frequent releases and closer attention to how we fix issues along with good ITs to avoid regressions. --Brian --- John Casey Committer and PMC Member, Apache Maven mail: jdcasey at commonjava dot org blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/john rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/ejlife/john -- Justice is nothing more than that which is in the greatest self-interest of the largest portion of the population. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
