On 19.02.15 14:28, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Hi
Another try, hopefully right this time (I speak about JCS in a JUG
next thursday so would be awesome to have a release ;))
- here is the maven repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1083/
- assemblies can
+1
On 20 February 2015 at 00:28, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi
Another try, hopefully right this time (I speak about JCS in a JUG
next thursday so would be awesome to have a release ;))
- here is the maven repo:
Build succeeds on OSX
java version 1.7.0_71
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.7.0_71-b14)
Failed on 1.8 due to javadoc whining
Contents look OK, sigs and hashes are good.
Two nits:
* Release notes should be included with source and binary release
tarballs
* BUILDING.txt has a typo -
done
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2015-02-19 22:27 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com:
Oops you are right, forgot I changed of key with my hard drive :s. My
key can be found in
Build was successful (in half an hour) on Windows 8.1 with JDK 1.6.
Artifacts and site look good.
Nits:
- The sources artifacts in the binary distribution contain spurious
directories.
- IMHO a 2.0 release should have a file with release notes included
describing the possibly breaking changes to
Hi,
maybe the problem is on my side (it has been a long day), but I am not
able to verify the signature of the distributions:
$ gpg --verify commons-jcs-dist-2.0-beta-1-src.zip.asc
gpg: Signature made 02/19/15 11:51:21 using RSA key ID DDB37997
gpg: Can't check signature: public key not found
I
Hi
Another try, hopefully right this time (I speak about JCS in a JUG
next thursday so would be awesome to have a release ;))
- here is the maven repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1083/
- assemblies can be found here
Oops you are right, forgot I changed of key with my hard drive :s. My
key can be found in http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS.
I'll add it in commons tomorrow.
Sorry again
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
Thank you, Romain!
Builds fine; no errors, no warnings - have not checked for other issues; so
here's my non-binding +1;
I'm hardly waiting for a (beta) release, as I'd like to replace old JSC in an
application of mine...
Johannes
mvn -version
Apache Maven 3.0.5
On 29 January 2015 at 01:11, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote:
They are not, at least what you noted is not blocking and now clean up for
futures releases
They are blocking.
And it already is a future release, since this problem was pointed out
in the previous review candidate.
Ok get it, let cancel this vote
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2015-01-29 2:26 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com:
The NOTICE file at
On 28.01.15 20:39, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
Hello Romain,
I've looked at the RC.
- Signs and hashes are good
- builds find with maven 3.2.5 and Java 6 and 7, although the build of the
core takes forever... The build fails with Java 8 (I've run mvn clean
verify). It looks like it's trying
On 26.01.15 12:19, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
if that's the case +1 but anyway it doesnt hurt
@Thomas: before dropping it can you confirm it a last time please?
I don't even know if it actually works with the current code. It was
like this when I got here (TM). I'd suggest to remove the aspect
Build takes ~15mn on my computer but my hard drive is slow (compared
to a mac I'm at least twice slower cause of it).
BTW I'll remove aspectj dir on trunk.
About Java 8: while it is javadoc only I think we don't care - in
particular since we can't release building with a java 8 JVM while we
On 28 January 2015 at 20:46, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote:
Build takes ~15mn on my computer but my hard drive is slow (compared
to a mac I'm at least twice slower cause of it).
BTW I'll remove aspectj dir on trunk.
About Java 8: while it is javadoc only I think we don't
They are not, at least what you noted is not blocking and now clean up for
futures releases
Le 29 janv. 2015 00:45, sebb seb...@gmail.com a écrit :
On 28 January 2015 at 20:46, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Build takes ~15mn on my computer but my hard drive is slow (compared
The NOTICE file at
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/jcs/tags/commons-jcs-2.0-beta-1/NOTICE.txt
looks wrong just by the fact that it points to another non-existent file:
This product includes software developed at Xerox Corporation.
See the LICENSE.xerox file.
There is no
Hello Romain,
I've looked at the RC.
- Signs and hashes are good
- builds find with maven 3.2.5 and Java 6 and 7, although the build of the
core takes forever... The build fails with Java 8 (I've run mvn clean
verify). It looks like it's trying to create the JavaDocs but that fails
because of
Ok so you only speak about dist src bundle?
Not sure it does need to cancel the vote, this is not a major issue
IMO and can be fixed for next one
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2015-01-26 12:39
On 26 January 2015 at 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok so you only speak about dist src bundle?
No, it also affects the binary bundle, and it affects the SVN tag
(which is also a distribution, though not a release)
Not sure it does need to cancel the vote, this is not
Release votes cannot be vetoed, so it's just a vote against. If you
have more +1's than -1's and you have at least 3 PMC folks saying +1,
then you can release. However, if we do have an opportunity to clean
something up here, we should take it. If we can just remove this file
and move on
Sebb, this is nowhere stated in the bylaws. There is just no ground for totally
blasting a release!
It's superfluous and not 100% perfect but it is NOT wrong. The sources
_currenty_ contain this file, so we have it.
For how long is this now in the codebase? 2 years? even longer?
Be glad that
2015-01-26 17:48 GMT+01:00 sebb seb...@gmail.com:
On 26 January 2015 at 13:45, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
Release votes cannot be vetoed, so it's just a vote against. If you
The problem here is that there does not appear to be a specific commit
that can be vetoed which
On 26 January 2015 at 16:47, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote:
2015-01-26 17:41 GMT+01:00 sebb seb...@gmail.com:
On 26 January 2015 at 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ok so you only speak about dist src bundle?
No, it also affects the binary bundle, and
On 26 January 2015 at 13:45, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
Release votes cannot be vetoed, so it's just a vote against. If you
The problem here is that there does not appear to be a specific commit
that can be vetoed which can be said to be the cause of the problem.
have more
but this is not a blocker and actually can even be considered right
since optional doesn't mean shouldn't be mentioned (in particular I
think it is better to mention it even if optional to avoid ambiguities
and keep the origin explicit)
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 11:48 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
Strictly speaking that is true, but when an issue is found, the RM
should take any vetos into account.
They are NOT vetoes.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
2015-01-26 17:41 GMT+01:00 sebb seb...@gmail.com:
On 26 January 2015 at 12:20, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok so you only speak about dist src bundle?
No, it also affects the binary bundle, and it affects the SVN tag
(which is also a distribution, though not a release)
On 26 January 2015 at 17:38, Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de wrote:
Sebb, this is nowhere stated in the bylaws. There is just no ground for
totally blasting a release!
This has come up several times, and the rules are still at:
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#mod-notice
It's
@sebb: I read this doc when you mentionned it previously and
intentionnaly kept it cause it makes things clearer for me and it is
not mandatory to remove it, just better. I thought more code was from
xerox - why I wanted to keep it. Anyway this is not a blocker at all
and we have to fix it, just
Why not just drop it entirely?
If that is the only Xerox-licensed file, it is not essential to the
operation of JCS, so why keep it?
On 25 January 2015 at 21:44, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Mark,
this is not packaged AFAIK, just here as a sample I guess.
Romain
On 26 January 2015 at 11:19, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote:
if that's the case +1 but anyway it doesnt hurt
But it does have some consequences, because of the license issues.
@Thomas: before dropping it can you confirm it a last time please?
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
if that's the case +1 but anyway it doesnt hurt
@Thomas: before dropping it can you confirm it a last time please?
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2015-01-26 12:18 GMT+01:00 sebb seb...@gmail.com:
Why
@sebb: not sure I get it right, it references LICENSE.txt correctly for me
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2015-01-26 12:27 GMT+01:00 sebb seb...@gmail.com:
On 26 January 2015 at 11:19, Romain Manni-Bucau
On 26 January 2015 at 11:30, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote:
@sebb: not sure I get it right, it references LICENSE.txt correctly for me
Not sure what you mean by it above.
As I already wrote:
The NOTICE file should not reference LICENSE.txt
Nor should it reference LICENSE.xerox,
-jcs:2.0-beta-1) - [Help 1]
gruss
Bernd
--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net
- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -
Von: Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com
Gesendet: 05.01.2015 20:03
An: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [VOTE][JCS] release [jcs] 2.0-beta-1
Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [VOTE][JCS] release [jcs] 2.0-beta-1 (take 3)
Hi
What I did was mainly mvn site for all module then copy all generate
site folder in a folder named as the module. For instance
http://people.apache.org/~rmannibucau/commons-jcs-2.0-beta-1
@commons.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [VOTE][JCS] release [jcs] 2.0-beta-1 (take 3)
Hi
What I did was mainly mvn site for all module then copy all
generate
site folder in a folder named as the module. For instance
http://people.apache.org/~rmannibucau/commons-jcs-2.0-beta-1
On 25.01.15 17:00, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
It does AFAIK - was not here and just propagated existing legal text - and
that is why it is referenced in core and not all artifacts.
Le 25 janv. 2015 16:55, sebb seb...@gmail.com a écrit :
The XEROX license relates to the file
-
Von: Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com
Gesendet: 05.01.2015 20:03
An: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [VOTE][JCS] release [jcs] 2.0-beta-1 (take 3)
Hi
What I did was mainly mvn site for all module then copy all generate
site folder
is that all?
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/jcs/trunk/commons-jcs-core/src/aspect/org/apache/commons/Trace.aj
Wouldn't it be actually quite easy to replace this?
LieGrue,
strub
On Sunday, 25 January 2015, 19:30, Thomas Vandahl t...@apache.org wrote:
On 25.01.15 17:00,
Hi Mark,
this is not packaged AFAIK, just here as a sample I guess.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2015-01-25 22:35 GMT+01:00 Mark Struberg strub...@yahoo.de:
is that all?
://bernd.eckenfels.net
- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -
Von: Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com
Gesendet: 05.01.2015 20:03
An: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [VOTE][JCS] release [jcs] 2.0-beta-1 (take 3)
Hi
What I did was mainly mvn site
-jcs:2.0-beta-1) - [Help 1]
gruss
Bernd
--
http://bernd.eckenfels.net
- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -
Von: Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com
Gesendet: 05.01.2015 20:03
An: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [VOTE][JCS] release [jcs
Hello Romain,
what do I have to do to build the module web sites? After mvn site I have a
link Project Modules in the navigation, but the links to the module sites
don't work. Can you help?
Benedikt
2015-01-04 22:35 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com:
Hi
Another try with
Hi
What I did was mainly mvn site for all module then copy all generate
site folder in a folder named as the module. For instance
http://people.apache.org/~rmannibucau/commons-jcs-2.0-beta-1/commons-jcs-jcache/index.html
was in commons-jcs-jcache/target/site/
Not sure it is the right procedure
...@gmail.com
Gesendet: 05.01.2015 20:03
An: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [VOTE][JCS] release [jcs] 2.0-beta-1 (take 3)
Hi
What I did was mainly mvn site for all module then copy all generate
site folder in a folder named as the module. For instance
http
- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -
Von: Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com
Gesendet: 05.01.2015 20:03
An: Commons Developers List dev@commons.apache.org
Betreff: Re: [VOTE][JCS] release [jcs] 2.0-beta-1 (take 3)
Hi
What I did was mainly mvn site for all module then copy all generate
site
Hi
Another try with license/notice files
- here is the maven repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1074/
- assemblies can be found here
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1074/org/apache/commons/commons-jcs-dist/2.0-beta-1/
-
There are some discrepancies between the source artifact and the SVN tag.
The source artifact contains derby.log under commons-jcs-jcache-openjpa
The source bundles should not contain the doap file
Those problems can be addressed by fixing the appropriate assembly descriptors.
Note that the
2014-12-10 10:07 GMT+01:00 sebb seb...@gmail.com:
There are some discrepancies between the source artifact and the SVN tag.
The source artifact contains derby.log under commons-jcs-jcache-openjpa
The source bundles should not contain the doap file
Those problems can be addressed by fixing
On 10 December 2014 at 09:36, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-12-10 10:07 GMT+01:00 sebb seb...@gmail.com:
There are some discrepancies between the source artifact and the SVN tag.
The source artifact contains derby.log under commons-jcs-jcache-openjpa
The source bundles
ok,
yeah sources jars are the ones without these files
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-12-10 11:30 GMT+01:00 sebb seb...@gmail.com:
On 10 December 2014 at 09:36, Romain Manni-Bucau
cancelled cause of missing license/notice in sources
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-12-10 11:36 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com:
ok,
yeah sources jars are the ones without these
Hi,
the jars and javadoc-jars now indeed contain LICENSE and NOTICE files
(the source artifacts still do not); however, I have the impression that
these are not the correct ones: they are missing the .txt extension, and
at least the content of NOTICE is different from the NOTICE.txt shipped
at
yes there are 2-3 tests which can fail easily (on my machine I
shouldn't do anything else otherwise it fails). Reruing them is enough
to have a green build in general.
About notice file I didnt do anything special.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
found the cause for license/notice, comons-parent pom skips it :( (seriously?)
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-12-04 14:41 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com:
Hi
2014-12-03 22:29
I'll add license/notice files and rerun the release
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-12-05 8:58 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com:
found the cause for license/notice, comons-parent
Hi
Another try with license/notice files
- here is the maven repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1065
- assemblies can be found here
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1065/org/apache/commons/commons-jcs-dist/2.0-beta-1/
-
On 5 December 2014 at 07:58, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote:
found the cause for license/notice, comons-parent pom skips it :( (seriously?)
Apache parent POM automatically adds LICENSE and
NOTICE files
to jars - duplicating the LICENSE.txt and
no, issue was commons-parent skips the plugin doing it, just needed to
activate it back in [jcs]
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-12-05 12:22 GMT+01:00 sebb seb...@gmail.com:
On 5 December 2014 at
That's not needed in single module projects.
Looks like CP needs some TLC for multi-module projects such as JCS.
BTW, what command-line did you use to create the RC?
On 5 December 2014 at 11:23, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com wrote:
no, issue was commons-parent skips the plugin doing
Hi Romain,
I tried to build the source distribution on Windows 8.1 with Java 1.6
and 1.7, but a test seems to hang - ironically the test
org.apache.commons.jcs.auxiliary.disk.indexed.IndexedDiskCacheConcurrentNoDeadLockUnitTest.
Or does it really take that long (I lost patience after ~ 10
Hi
2014-12-03 22:29 GMT+01:00 Oliver Heger oliver.he...@oliver-heger.de:
Hi Romain,
I tried to build the source distribution on Windows 8.1 with Java 1.6
and 1.7, but a test seems to hang - ironically the test
Wow, no votes? :-( I am guilty of not having taken the time to look at this
beyond trying to build it...
Gary
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi
Finally took some time to try to finally get a beta for JCS 2.
- here is the maven repo:
Xmas is coming ;). Thanks for the effort Gary.
Le 3 déc. 2014 05:08, Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com a écrit :
Wow, no votes? :-( I am guilty of not having taken the time to look at this
beyond trying to build it...
Gary
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau
-1
The files at the tag are incorrect, least the POM is wrong:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/commons/proper/jcs/tags/commons-jcs-2.0-RC1/pom.xml
because the project version is 2.0-RC1 instead of 2.0.
I've not found one cannonical receipt for releasing out of commons sadly, I
use both
-
@Gary: wdym? rc version is RC1 so it matches project version finally.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-11-17 17:38 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com:
-1
The files at the tag are
No, the release candidate tag and project version should not match exactly.
The tag is a release candidate. What we are voting to produce is version
2.0, so whatever the tag points to should build version 2.0, not 2.0-RC1,
not a snapshot, just 2.0. We can have any number of tags 2.0-RC1, 2, 3 and
basically that's not what we (I maybe?) wanted to do. this was really
a RC (I even wanted to call it beta). So version is correct from this
point of view. I sadly didn't notice it was conflicting with commons
habits.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
Let's step back here.
Do you want to release an Alpha or Beta? As opposed to a telling people to
try out what is in the HEAD of trunk?
If you do release 2.0, the implications are strict as to what API changes
are allowed WRT binary compatibility.
If so you can do that if the JCS community
Basically I just want to release to let people grap it but I don't
want to prevent some API changes (so not yet a 2.0). Switched to a RC1
cause of all these commons release links.
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
I see several paths for you.
First, cancel the VOTE thread.
Second, decide if you want to tell people to grab the latest from SVN and
experiment or release an Alpha or Beta. If you want a release, go through
the process again...
Then publicize the availability of the code in SVN or a release to
This vote is cancelled since procedure was not correct
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-11-17 18:32 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com:
Well playing with SVN is fine a moment but some
Well playing with SVN is fine a moment but some projects start to
depend on SNAPSHOT and it can last forever (typically the case for
TomEE since some weeks to not say more).
I'll cancel the vote today, not sure I'll be able to reroll it this
month so if anyone has some cycles and will of doing it
It's still not clear to me what your goal is though as you did not answer
my question... ;-)
Gary
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:32 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Well playing with SVN is fine a moment but some projects start to
depend on SNAPSHOT and it can last forever
2 goals actually:
- let people test it (you can say what you want excepted for few dev
while it is not on central it is not grabbed)
- let tomee use a release of jcs 2 instead of the snapshot it depends on
For that purpose (mainly first point) a beta is perfect
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
What maven command did you use to create the whole site?
Thank you,
Gary
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi
I'm trying to align on commons standards this time.
- here is the maven repo:
The main RAT report on your site shows:
Unapproved licenses:
src/scripts/zipcodes.txt
LICENSE.xerox
So you need to exclude the LICENSE.xerox from the check I would guess.
Either add a license header to src/scripts/zipcodes.txt or exclude it,
not sure which is more appropriate.
I'm not
The release notes mention older versions of pre 2.0 JCS but the previous
versions are not available under the commons-jcs AID in Maven Central,
therefore a brief historical not would be helpful on the site IMO.
Gary
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com
wrote:
about the command: mvn site.
about rat report: yeah both should be excluded (I'll update it just
after this mail)
about the historical note: I'll try to tackle it as well
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-11-16 18:55 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com:
about the command: mvn site.
about rat report: yeah both should be excluded (I'll update it just
after this mail)
weird it was:
plugin
groupIdorg.apache.rat/groupId
artifactIdapache-rat-plugin/artifactId
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com
wrote:
about the command: mvn site.
about rat report: yeah both should be excluded (I'll update it just
after this mail)
about the historical note: I'll try to tackle it as well
Great, thanks.
Another thing that is
Also, I still do not see links from the main site to the plugin sites which
should have all their reports.
IOW, doing 'mvn site' is not going to work for a multi-module site. See
Log4j 2 for an example of a multi-module site build.
Gary
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Gary Gregory
Plugins means modules?
http://people.apache.org/~rmannibucau/commons-jcs-2.0-RC1/modules.html
mvn site should worrk while folders are deployed as the project structure
no?
Le 16 nov. 2014 21:37, Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com a écrit :
Also, I still do not see links from the main site to
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Plugins means modules?
http://people.apache.org/~rmannibucau/commons-jcs-2.0-RC1/modules.html
Yes, thank you, I keep on missing those...
Gary
mvn site should worrk while folders are deployed as the project
2014-11-14 18:24 GMT+01:00 Thomas Vandahl t...@apache.org:
On 12.11.14 10:23, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Hi
I'm trying to align on commons standards this time.
- here is the maven repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1061/
Builds and tests run fine.
upated
http://people.apache.org/~rmannibucau/commons-jcs-2.0-RC1/JCSandJCACHE.html
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-11-15 10:59 GMT+01:00 Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com:
2014-11-14 18:24
On 12.11.14 10:23, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Hi
I'm trying to align on commons standards this time.
- here is the maven repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1061/
Builds and tests run fine.
Apache Maven 3.2.1 (ea8b2b07643dbb1b84b6d16e1f08391b666bc1e9;
Dear Romain,
the packages are build nicely at my platform, here is my non-binding +1.
Apache Maven 3.0.5 (r01de14724cdef164cd33c7c8c2fe155faf9602da; 2013-02-19
14:51:28+0100)
Maven home: /home.local/java/apache-maven-3
Java version: 1.7.0_71, vendor: Oracle Corporation
Java home:
Le 13 nov. 2014 10:51, Johannes Weberhofer jweberho...@weberhofer.at a
écrit :
Dear Romain,
the packages are build nicely at my platform, here is my non-binding +1.
Apache Maven 3.0.5 (r01de14724cdef164cd33c7c8c2fe155faf9602da; 2013-02-19
14:51:28+0100)
Maven home:
Why is the xdocs folder not under src/site?
Gary
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 4:23 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau rmannibu...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi
I'm trying to align on commons standards this time.
- here is the maven repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1061/
-
No idea, inheritance from previou sstructure surely
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-11-13 16:58 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory garydgreg...@gmail.com:
Why is the xdocs folder not under src/site?
Gary
On
Hi
I'm trying to align on commons standards this time.
- here is the maven repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachecommons-1061/
- assemblies can be found here
On 27.10.14 12:42, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Any issue if we keep it like it for the first release at least then
we'll change when the lifecycle will be different Thomas?
Do as you please. Let's see how it goes. I'll do my best to help if I can.
Bye, Thomas.
On 26.10.14 17:18, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Why? I expect them to stay aligned for at least the first year.
I don't expect this. That's just what experience tells me. However, I
have been wrong before.
Bye, Thomas.
-
To
Any issue if we keep it like it for the first release at least then
we'll change when the lifecycle will be different Thomas?
Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau
http://www.tomitribe.com
http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com
https://github.com/rmannibucau
2014-10-27 12:40 GMT+01:00 Thomas Vandahl
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Thomas Vandahl t...@apache.org wrote:
On 26.10.14 17:18, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
Why? I expect them to stay aligned for at least the first year.
I don't expect this. That's just what experience tells me. However, I
have been wrong before.
Keeping
On 23.10.14 20:54, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
right, I expected a whole project assembly, don't we do it?
I believe that the different modules will be released independently.
So we need separate assemblies.
Bye, Thomas.
-
To
Why? I expect them to stay aligned for at least the first year.
Le 26 oct. 2014 14:23, Thomas Vandahl t...@apache.org a écrit :
On 23.10.14 20:54, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
right, I expected a whole project assembly, don't we do it?
I believe that the different modules will be released
1 - 100 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
