Re: [VOTE] release maven-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1
On 17-Jan-08, at 6:24 PM, Dan Fabulich wrote: Responding out of order, techincal stuff first... Daniel Kulp wrote: The fact is MSHADE-9 is not something we can fix in maven-shade- plugin. It's a bug in ASM and isn't fixable until they provide a fix. (unless someone wants to jump into ASM code. I don't have the time.) I'm not saying MSHADE-9 is easy to fix, but that claim assumes we're using ASM correctly, which seems like a pretty bold assumption to me; ASM is notoriously finicky. If anything's likely to be wrong, it's probably us! We can talk to Eugene as I got his advice first. He's as ASM committer and it's his code in ASM that I originally used. Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- A party which is not afraid of letting culture, business, and welfare go to ruin completely can be omnipotent for a while. -- Jakob Burckhardt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] release maven-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1
+1 --jason On Jan 17, 2008, at 3:22 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: Well, I'd prefer to not get into "version number" arguments as it really just doesn't matter.Hell, we have plugins (like the release plugin, dependency plugin, etc..) that EVERYONE uses that haven't had a real release and others (like surefire) that never had a "alpha/beta" release, but probably should have. The fact is MSHADE-9 is not something we can fix in maven-shade- plugin. It's a bug in ASM and isn't fixable until they provide a fix. (unless someone wants to jump into ASM code. I don't have the time.) Since they haven't provided a new version into the repos in almost a year, I'm not going to hold my breath for a fix. IMO, we shouldn't let that hold up moving forward with getting this plugin in shape for the many people and projects that don't need that fixed. In it's current form, the plugin works perfectly fine for a large number of use cases. Thus, I say lets get it out. Wether it's call beta-1 or alpha-16 or even 1.0 is relatively irrelevant to me. Anway, that all said, any more PMC votes either way? Dan On Wednesday 16 January 2008, Dan Fabulich wrote: I approve of the idea of releasing another version of maven-shade-plugin, but I don't think we should call it non-alpha until MSHADE-9 is fixed. http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MSHADE-9 If this were called 1.0-alpha-16, I'd give it a +1; as it stands, I have to vote -1 (non-binding). -Dan Daniel Kulp wrote: I'd like to release maven-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1 as I kind of need it for some of my projects. I think Geronimo may need it as well. This fixes a couple issues we'e run into: ** Bug * [MSHADE-11] - Shaded jars are not unjarrable * [MSHADE-13] - META-INF/INDEX.LIST files need to be skipped ** New Feature * [MSHADE-12] - Ability to filter contents of the archives added to the shaded jar Release notes: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=13921&style Name=Text&projectId=11540&Create=Create Tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/tags/maven-shade-plugi n-1.0-beta-1/ Staged at: http://people.apache.org/~dkulp/stage_shade/ The vote will be open for 72 hours. Here is my +1 -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer, IONA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog - 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] -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer, IONA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog - 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-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1
+1 dkulp wrote: > > > I'd like to release maven-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1 as I kind of need it > for some of my projects. I think Geronimo may need it as well. > > This fixes a couple issues we'e run into: > > ** Bug > * [MSHADE-11] - Shaded jars are not unjarrable > * [MSHADE-13] - META-INF/INDEX.LIST files need to be skipped > ** New Feature > * [MSHADE-12] - Ability to filter contents of the archives added to > the shaded jar > > Release notes: > http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=13921&styleName=Text&projectId=11540&Create=Create > > Tag: > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/tags/maven-shade-plugin-1.0-beta-1/ > > Staged at: > http://people.apache.org/~dkulp/stage_shade/ > > > The vote will be open for 72 hours. > > Here is my +1 > -- > J. Daniel Kulp > Principal Engineer, IONA > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.dankulp.com/blog > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--release-maven-shade-plugin-1.0-beta-1-tp14892803s177p14955298.html Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] release maven-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1
Brian E. Fox wrote: It's not entirely true that versions don't matter. Alpha or Beta is really a less important distinction and we are generally trying to move away from more alpha/beta releases. I would argue that since Maven requires Shade to release, that the current version should be 1.0 not alpha or beta. Doing a release is much more than slapping a version (tag) on it. It makes the next version usable by other people to do releases because it means we've pushed a non-snapshot to the public. If there are people unaffected by MSHADE-9, then there is still value to those people in having a release now rather than later. I think in general we try to fix too many things at once and end up not getting important fixes out to the people that need them. I'd rather see a release come out with the current fixes and then when MSHADE-9 is fixed, we do another release. At least then some people can use it rather than making everyone wait...and realistically doing the release doesn't preclude someone from fixing the issue in parallel so it shouldn't in theory delay the inevitable release with the MSHADE-9 fix in it. +1 Betas (and alphas) IMO should be milestones towards a final major release 1.x or 2.x. But all too often betas tend to get treated as "final" releases. No problem in having a release with a known issue (in this case MSHADE-9). - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] release maven-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1
+1 On 17-Jan-08, at 6:30 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote: It's not entirely true that versions don't matter. Alpha or Beta is really a less important distinction and we are generally trying to move away from more alpha/beta releases. I would argue that since Maven requires Shade to release, that the current version should be 1.0 not alpha or beta. Doing a release is much more than slapping a version (tag) on it. It makes the next version usable by other people to do releases because it means we've pushed a non-snapshot to the public. If there are people unaffected by MSHADE-9, then there is still value to those people in having a release now rather than later. I think in general we try to fix too many things at once and end up not getting important fixes out to the people that need them. I'd rather see a release come out with the current fixes and then when MSHADE-9 is fixed, we do another release. At least then some people can use it rather than making everyone wait...and realistically doing the release doesn't preclude someone from fixing the issue in parallel so it shouldn't in theory delay the inevitable release with the MSHADE-9 fix in it. -Original Message- From: Dan Fabulich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:25 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: [VOTE] release maven-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1 Responding out of order, techincal stuff first... Daniel Kulp wrote: The fact is MSHADE-9 is not something we can fix in maven-shade-plugin. It's a bug in ASM and isn't fixable until they provide a fix. (unless someone wants to jump into ASM code. I don't have the time.) I'm not saying MSHADE-9 is easy to fix, but that claim assumes we're using ASM correctly, which seems like a pretty bold assumption to me; ASM is notoriously finicky. If anything's likely to be wrong, it's probably us! Since they haven't provided a new version into the repos in almost a year, I'm not going to hold my breath for a fix. Version 3.1 of ASM came out in October. ASM is very much a live project. I'd say it's at least worth trying the latest version of ASM. IMO, we shouldn't let that hold up moving forward with getting this plugin in shape for the many people and projects that don't need that fixed. I agree we should do a release now. But I do think it matters what we call it. I'd prefer to not get into "version number" arguments as it really just doesn't matter. I disagree that version numbers don't matter, though it's obviously a seductive argument. (It's just a number, right?) But bugs certainly do matter when they get released (or, at least, we have to behave as if they do or we'll release crappy software). But all we do when we make a "release" is slap a version number/name on something. If version numbers don't matter, then it doesn't matter what bugs we fix before we change version numbers, i.e. it doesn't matter what bugs we fix before we release. Since bugs and releases matter, version numbers matter just as much as that. Of course, if bugs don't matter, then sure, it doesn't matter whether we call our buggy software 1.0 or 2008 Business Edition. ;-) Specifically, if MSHADE-9 doesn't matter at all, well, it's the only "Blocker" bug filed against the shade plugin right now, so I guess we *SHOULD* release 1.0... none of the other bugs matter as much as that one, right? :-) -Dan - 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] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- Our achievements speak for themselves. What we have to keep track of are our failures, discouragements and doubts. We tend to forget the past difficulties, the many false starts, and the painful groping. We see our past achievements as the end result of a clean forward thrust, and our present difficulties as signs of decline and decay. -- Eric Hoffer, Reflections on the Human Condition - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] release maven-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1
I agree 100%, release often its the only way things really get used and tested in the wild... if people have problems they can alway roll back to the last release in the deps... On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:30:51 Brian E. Fox wrote: ... > the people that need them. I'd rather see a release come out with the > current fixes and then when MSHADE-9 is fixed, we do another release. At > least then some people can use it rather than making everyone wait...and > realistically doing the release doesn't preclude someone from fixing the > issue in parallel so it shouldn't in theory delay the inevitable release > with the MSHADE-9 fix in it. > -- Michael McCallum Enterprise Engineer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] release maven-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1
It's not entirely true that versions don't matter. Alpha or Beta is really a less important distinction and we are generally trying to move away from more alpha/beta releases. I would argue that since Maven requires Shade to release, that the current version should be 1.0 not alpha or beta. Doing a release is much more than slapping a version (tag) on it. It makes the next version usable by other people to do releases because it means we've pushed a non-snapshot to the public. If there are people unaffected by MSHADE-9, then there is still value to those people in having a release now rather than later. I think in general we try to fix too many things at once and end up not getting important fixes out to the people that need them. I'd rather see a release come out with the current fixes and then when MSHADE-9 is fixed, we do another release. At least then some people can use it rather than making everyone wait...and realistically doing the release doesn't preclude someone from fixing the issue in parallel so it shouldn't in theory delay the inevitable release with the MSHADE-9 fix in it. -Original Message- From: Dan Fabulich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:25 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: [VOTE] release maven-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1 Responding out of order, techincal stuff first... Daniel Kulp wrote: > The fact is MSHADE-9 is not something we can fix in maven-shade-plugin. > It's a bug in ASM and isn't fixable until they provide a fix. (unless > someone wants to jump into ASM code. I don't have the time.) I'm not saying MSHADE-9 is easy to fix, but that claim assumes we're using ASM correctly, which seems like a pretty bold assumption to me; ASM is notoriously finicky. If anything's likely to be wrong, it's probably us! > Since they haven't provided a new version into the repos in almost a > year, I'm not going to hold my breath for a fix. Version 3.1 of ASM came out in October. ASM is very much a live project. I'd say it's at least worth trying the latest version of ASM. > IMO, we shouldn't let that hold up moving forward with getting this > plugin in shape for the many people and projects that don't need that > fixed. I agree we should do a release now. But I do think it matters what we call it. > I'd prefer to not get into "version number" arguments as it really just > doesn't matter. I disagree that version numbers don't matter, though it's obviously a seductive argument. (It's just a number, right?) But bugs certainly do matter when they get released (or, at least, we have to behave as if they do or we'll release crappy software). But all we do when we make a "release" is slap a version number/name on something. If version numbers don't matter, then it doesn't matter what bugs we fix before we change version numbers, i.e. it doesn't matter what bugs we fix before we release. Since bugs and releases matter, version numbers matter just as much as that. Of course, if bugs don't matter, then sure, it doesn't matter whether we call our buggy software 1.0 or 2008 Business Edition. ;-) Specifically, if MSHADE-9 doesn't matter at all, well, it's the only "Blocker" bug filed against the shade plugin right now, so I guess we *SHOULD* release 1.0... none of the other bugs matter as much as that one, right? :-) -Dan - 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-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1
Responding out of order, techincal stuff first... Daniel Kulp wrote: The fact is MSHADE-9 is not something we can fix in maven-shade-plugin. It's a bug in ASM and isn't fixable until they provide a fix. (unless someone wants to jump into ASM code. I don't have the time.) I'm not saying MSHADE-9 is easy to fix, but that claim assumes we're using ASM correctly, which seems like a pretty bold assumption to me; ASM is notoriously finicky. If anything's likely to be wrong, it's probably us! Since they haven't provided a new version into the repos in almost a year, I'm not going to hold my breath for a fix. Version 3.1 of ASM came out in October. ASM is very much a live project. I'd say it's at least worth trying the latest version of ASM. IMO, we shouldn't let that hold up moving forward with getting this plugin in shape for the many people and projects that don't need that fixed. I agree we should do a release now. But I do think it matters what we call it. I'd prefer to not get into "version number" arguments as it really just doesn't matter. I disagree that version numbers don't matter, though it's obviously a seductive argument. (It's just a number, right?) But bugs certainly do matter when they get released (or, at least, we have to behave as if they do or we'll release crappy software). But all we do when we make a "release" is slap a version number/name on something. If version numbers don't matter, then it doesn't matter what bugs we fix before we change version numbers, i.e. it doesn't matter what bugs we fix before we release. Since bugs and releases matter, version numbers matter just as much as that. Of course, if bugs don't matter, then sure, it doesn't matter whether we call our buggy software 1.0 or 2008 Business Edition. ;-) Specifically, if MSHADE-9 doesn't matter at all, well, it's the only "Blocker" bug filed against the shade plugin right now, so I guess we *SHOULD* release 1.0... none of the other bugs matter as much as that one, right? :-) -Dan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [VOTE] release maven-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1
+1 get it out and that doesn't stop us from doing another release soon. -Original Message- From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:22 PM To: dev@maven.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] release maven-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1 Well, I'd prefer to not get into "version number" arguments as it really just doesn't matter.Hell, we have plugins (like the release plugin, dependency plugin, etc..) that EVERYONE uses that haven't had a real release and others (like surefire) that never had a "alpha/beta" release, but probably should have. The fact is MSHADE-9 is not something we can fix in maven-shade-plugin. It's a bug in ASM and isn't fixable until they provide a fix. (unless someone wants to jump into ASM code. I don't have the time.) Since they haven't provided a new version into the repos in almost a year, I'm not going to hold my breath for a fix. IMO, we shouldn't let that hold up moving forward with getting this plugin in shape for the many people and projects that don't need that fixed. In it's current form, the plugin works perfectly fine for a large number of use cases. Thus, I say lets get it out. Wether it's call beta-1 or alpha-16 or even 1.0 is relatively irrelevant to me. Anway, that all said, any more PMC votes either way? Dan On Wednesday 16 January 2008, Dan Fabulich wrote: > I approve of the idea of releasing another version of > maven-shade-plugin, but I don't think we should call it non-alpha > until MSHADE-9 is fixed. > > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MSHADE-9 > > If this were called 1.0-alpha-16, I'd give it a +1; as it stands, I > have to vote -1 (non-binding). > > -Dan > > Daniel Kulp wrote: > > I'd like to release maven-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1 as I kind of need > > it for some of my projects. I think Geronimo may need it as well. > > > > This fixes a couple issues we'e run into: > > > > ** Bug > >* [MSHADE-11] - Shaded jars are not unjarrable > >* [MSHADE-13] - META-INF/INDEX.LIST files need to be skipped > > ** New Feature > >* [MSHADE-12] - Ability to filter contents of the archives added > > to the shaded jar > > > > Release notes: > > http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=13921&style > >Name=Text&projectId=11540&Create=Create > > > > Tag: > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/tags/maven-shade-plugi > >n-1.0-beta-1/ > > > > Staged at: > > http://people.apache.org/~dkulp/stage_shade/ > > > > > > The vote will be open for 72 hours. > > > > Here is my +1 > > -- > > J. Daniel Kulp > > Principal Engineer, IONA > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.dankulp.com/blog > > > > > >- 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] -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer, IONA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog - 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-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1
dkulp wrote: > > I'd like to release maven-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1 as I kind of need it > for some of my projects. I think Geronimo may need it as well. > OpenEJB, actually. And here's my +1! (non-binding) -David -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--release-maven-shade-plugin-1.0-beta-1-tp14892803s177p14942018.html Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] release maven-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1
Well, I'd prefer to not get into "version number" arguments as it really just doesn't matter.Hell, we have plugins (like the release plugin, dependency plugin, etc..) that EVERYONE uses that haven't had a real release and others (like surefire) that never had a "alpha/beta" release, but probably should have. The fact is MSHADE-9 is not something we can fix in maven-shade-plugin. It's a bug in ASM and isn't fixable until they provide a fix. (unless someone wants to jump into ASM code. I don't have the time.) Since they haven't provided a new version into the repos in almost a year, I'm not going to hold my breath for a fix. IMO, we shouldn't let that hold up moving forward with getting this plugin in shape for the many people and projects that don't need that fixed. In it's current form, the plugin works perfectly fine for a large number of use cases. Thus, I say lets get it out. Wether it's call beta-1 or alpha-16 or even 1.0 is relatively irrelevant to me. Anway, that all said, any more PMC votes either way? Dan On Wednesday 16 January 2008, Dan Fabulich wrote: > I approve of the idea of releasing another version of > maven-shade-plugin, but I don't think we should call it non-alpha > until MSHADE-9 is fixed. > > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MSHADE-9 > > If this were called 1.0-alpha-16, I'd give it a +1; as it stands, I > have to vote -1 (non-binding). > > -Dan > > Daniel Kulp wrote: > > I'd like to release maven-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1 as I kind of need > > it for some of my projects. I think Geronimo may need it as well. > > > > This fixes a couple issues we'e run into: > > > > ** Bug > >* [MSHADE-11] - Shaded jars are not unjarrable > >* [MSHADE-13] - META-INF/INDEX.LIST files need to be skipped > > ** New Feature > >* [MSHADE-12] - Ability to filter contents of the archives added > > to the shaded jar > > > > Release notes: > > http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=13921&style > >Name=Text&projectId=11540&Create=Create > > > > Tag: > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/tags/maven-shade-plugi > >n-1.0-beta-1/ > > > > Staged at: > > http://people.apache.org/~dkulp/stage_shade/ > > > > > > The vote will be open for 72 hours. > > > > Here is my +1 > > -- > > J. Daniel Kulp > > Principal Engineer, IONA > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.dankulp.com/blog > > > > > >- 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] -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer, IONA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] release maven-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1
I approve of the idea of releasing another version of maven-shade-plugin, but I don't think we should call it non-alpha until MSHADE-9 is fixed. http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MSHADE-9 If this were called 1.0-alpha-16, I'd give it a +1; as it stands, I have to vote -1 (non-binding). -Dan Daniel Kulp wrote: I'd like to release maven-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1 as I kind of need it for some of my projects. I think Geronimo may need it as well. This fixes a couple issues we'e run into: ** Bug * [MSHADE-11] - Shaded jars are not unjarrable * [MSHADE-13] - META-INF/INDEX.LIST files need to be skipped ** New Feature * [MSHADE-12] - Ability to filter contents of the archives added to the shaded jar Release notes: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=13921&styleName=Text&projectId=11540&Create=Create Tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/tags/maven-shade-plugin-1.0-beta-1/ Staged at: http://people.apache.org/~dkulp/stage_shade/ The vote will be open for 72 hours. Here is my +1 -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer, IONA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog - 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-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1
+1 On 16-Jan-08, at 11:57 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote: I'd like to release maven-shade-plugin 1.0-beta-1 as I kind of need it for some of my projects. I think Geronimo may need it as well. This fixes a couple issues we'e run into: ** Bug * [MSHADE-11] - Shaded jars are not unjarrable * [MSHADE-13] - META-INF/INDEX.LIST files need to be skipped ** New Feature * [MSHADE-12] - Ability to filter contents of the archives added to the shaded jar Release notes: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=13921&styleName=Text&projectId=11540&Create=Create Tag: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/tags/maven-shade-plugin-1.0-beta-1/ Staged at: http://people.apache.org/~dkulp/stage_shade/ The vote will be open for 72 hours. Here is my +1 -- J. Daniel Kulp Principal Engineer, IONA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dankulp.com/blog - 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 -- A man enjoys his work when he understands the whole and when he is responsible for the quality of the whole -- Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
