On 13 July 2013 15:26, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 8:30 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I've done some more investigations.
>>
>> It seems it's not possible to use mvn deploy directly to a dist URL such as
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/plugins
>> Probably becau
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 8:30 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>
> I've done some more investigations.
>
> It seems it's not possible to use mvn deploy directly to a dist URL such as
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/plugins
> Probably because the server does not support WEBDAV or something.
>
I've done some more investigations.
It seems it's not possible to use mvn deploy directly to a dist URL such as
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/commons/plugins
Probably because the server does not support WEBDAV or something.
However, there is a workround:
- checkout the URL locally, s
On 23 June 2013 21:02, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
>> On 23 June 2013 20:35, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 23/06/2013 20:28, sebb wrote:
On 23 June 2013 19:56, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>
> Am 23.06.2013 um 20:16 schrieb sebb :
>
>> On 23 June 2013 16:10, Jörg Schaible wr
sebb wrote:
> On 23 June 2013 20:35, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 23/06/2013 20:28, sebb wrote:
>>> On 23 June 2013 19:56, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
Am 23.06.2013 um 20:16 schrieb sebb :
> On 23 June 2013 16:10, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
sebb wrote:
> On 23 June 2013 16:10, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> But we still need to resolve:
>>> - where in SVN these tools belong
>>> - how to ensure the tools are readily available to RMs
>>
>> Well, don't we have the possibility to publish these plugins somewhere
On 23 June 2013 20:35, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 23/06/2013 20:28, sebb wrote:
>> On 23 June 2013 19:56, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 23.06.2013 um 20:16 schrieb sebb :
>>>
On 23 June 2013 16:10, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> But we still need to
On 23/06/2013 20:28, sebb wrote:
> On 23 June 2013 19:56, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>>
>> Am 23.06.2013 um 20:16 schrieb sebb :
>>
>>> On 23 June 2013 16:10, Jörg Schaible wrote:
sebb wrote:
[snip]
> But we still need to resolve:
> - where in SVN these tools belong
>>
>>
On 23 June 2013 19:56, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>
> Am 23.06.2013 um 20:16 schrieb sebb :
>
>> On 23 June 2013 16:10, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>>> sebb wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
But we still need to resolve:
- where in SVN these tools belong
>
> Let's just create a new top level folder under
Am 23.06.2013 um 20:16 schrieb sebb :
> On 23 June 2013 16:10, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> But we still need to resolve:
>>> - where in SVN these tools belong
Let's just create a new top level folder under
http://svn.apache.org/asf/commons. release-tools or someth
On 23 June 2013 16:10, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> But we still need to resolve:
>> - where in SVN these tools belong
>> - how to ensure the tools are readily available to RMs
>
> Well, don't we have the possibility to publish these plugins somewhere on
> the web site? All t
sebb wrote:
[snip]
> But we still need to resolve:
> - where in SVN these tools belong
> - how to ensure the tools are readily available to RMs
Well, don't we have the possibility to publish these plugins somewhere on
the web site? All that Maven actually needs is a structure that looks like a
sebb wrote:
> On 22 June 2013 12:50, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>> 2013/6/22 Jörg Schaible
[snip]
>>> Bad. At least to me. Especially since we always claim that we actually
>>> release the source and not necessarily the binaries. So every user that
>>> downloads our source can no longer simply bui
On 22 June 2013 17:41, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 6/22/13 7:26 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 22/06/2013 14:45, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>
>> I don't have answers neither do I have the Maven knowledge I suspect is
>> necessary to figure the answers out. I encourage those that do have the
>> Maven skills
On 22 June 2013 19:42, Oliver Heger wrote:
> Am 22.06.2013 19:10, schrieb Gary Gregory:
>
>> On Jun 22, 2013, at 12:41, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/22/13 7:26 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 22/06/2013 14:45, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> I'm for whatever does the RM process easier and l
On 22 June 2013 20:39, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> There is an existing plugin[1] that supports checksums generation
> applying a wider range of digest algorithm, it could help on inspiring
> the ASF one.
Thanks.
The one I wrote is equivalent to that plugins goals file/files, except
mine has slightl
There is an existing plugin[1] that supports checksums generation
applying a wider range of digest algorithm, it could help on inspiring
the ASF one.
my 0.02 EU ;)
[1]
http://nicoulaj.github.io/checksum-maven-plugin/examples/using-custom-checksum-algorithms.html
http://people.apache.org/~simone
Am 22.06.2013 19:10, schrieb Gary Gregory:
On Jun 22, 2013, at 12:41, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 6/22/13 7:26 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 22/06/2013 14:45, Gary Gregory wrote:
I'm for whatever does the RM process easier and less error prone. If
that means maven plugins, so be it.
This is written a
On Jun 22, 2013, at 12:41, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 6/22/13 7:26 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 22/06/2013 14:45, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>> I'm for whatever does the RM process easier and less error prone. If
>>> that means maven plugins, so be it.
>> This is written as someone who has never released
On 6/22/13 7:26 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 22/06/2013 14:45, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> I'm for whatever does the RM process easier and less error prone. If
>> that means maven plugins, so be it.
> This is written as someone who has never released a commons component
> and is very grateful for the fol
On 22/06/2013 14:45, Gary Gregory wrote:
> I'm for whatever does the RM process easier and less error prone. If
> that means maven plugins, so be it.
This is written as someone who has never released a commons component
and is very grateful for the folks that have done the release work for
the com
On 22 June 2013 15:15, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> what about moving this to maven plugins ?
> I'm pretty sure this could help some ASF projects.
But only ASF projects; it assumes specific processes.
> NOTE: the Maven sandbox path is open for all committers.
Thanks, that would be a better route for t
what about moving this to maven plugins ?
I'm pretty sure this could help some ASF projects.
NOTE: the Maven sandbox path is open for all committers.
And btw probably won't be hard to promote it and add sebb in maven committers.
My 0.02 AUD
2013/6/22 Phil Steitz :
> -0
>
> I don't think this sort
I'm for whatever does the RM process easier and less error prone. If
that means maven plugins, so be it.
Gary
On Jun 22, 2013, at 8:53, sebb wrote:
> On 22 June 2013 12:50, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
>> 2013/6/22 Jörg Schaible
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> sebb wrote:
>>>
On 22 June 2013 00:15, Phil St
On 22 June 2013 12:50, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> 2013/6/22 Jörg Schaible
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> sebb wrote:
>>
>> > On 22 June 2013 00:15, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> >> -0
>> >>
>> >> I don't think this sort of things belongs in Commons proper as a
>> >> component. What we advertise, release and support from
2013/6/22 Jörg Schaible
> Hi,
>
> sebb wrote:
>
> > On 22 June 2013 00:15, Phil Steitz wrote:
> >> -0
> >>
> >> I don't think this sort of things belongs in Commons proper as a
> >> component. What we advertise, release and support from commons
> >> proper are general purpose libraries that dev
Hi,
sebb wrote:
> On 22 June 2013 00:15, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> -0
>>
>> I don't think this sort of things belongs in Commons proper as a
>> component. What we advertise, release and support from commons
>> proper are general purpose libraries that developers can use in
>> their own applications
On 22 June 2013 00:15, Phil Steitz wrote:
> -0
>
> I don't think this sort of things belongs in Commons proper as a
> component. What we advertise, release and support from commons
> proper are general purpose libraries that developers can use in
> their own applications. This is what Commons wa
-0
I don't think this sort of things belongs in Commons proper as a
component. What we advertise, release and support from commons
proper are general purpose libraries that developers can use in
their own applications. This is what Commons was created for.
While the staging plugin looks like a
On 21 June 2013 19:45, Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> Hello Sebb,
>
> I very much appreciate your effort to ease the release process (although I've
> never been RM).
Thanks.
> I'd like to see some tests in the plugin. The code should meet the same
> quality requirements we put on other proper compon
Hello Sebb,
I very much appreciate your effort to ease the release process (although I've
never been RM).
I'd like to see some tests in the plugin. The code should meet the same quality
requirements we put on other proper components (although it is intended to be
used only for releasing common
+1
Gary
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:06 AM, sebb wrote:
> [I'm not sure a vote for this is really needed, but]
>
> I'd like to move the staging plugin from the sandbox to commons
> proper, so it can be released for use by Commons.
>
> The component name is currently
>
> commons-staging-plugin
>
Le 2013-06-21 16:06, sebb a écrit :
[I'm not sure a vote for this is really needed, but]
I'd like to move the staging plugin from the sandbox to commons
proper, so it can be released for use by Commons.
+1
The component name is currently
commons-staging-plugin
I propose to keep the same n
[I'm not sure a vote for this is really needed, but]
I'd like to move the staging plugin from the sandbox to commons
proper, so it can be released for use by Commons.
The component name is currently
commons-staging-plugin
I propose to keep the same name unless there are objections.
The vote wi
34 matches
Mail list logo
