Hi,
Could you please help me with this problem? I have started to study
Maven a few weeks ago and I have found what I think it is a bug in
generating the xml test reports: if I have 2 test classes A and B, in
the xml test report for class A all the test methods from both class A
and B are
Hi ,
You might want to have a look at Buckminster project under Eclipse as
well as raise this on their lists/newsgroup.
cheers,
Rahul
- Original Message -
From: Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Maven Developers List dev@maven.apache.org
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 5:26 PM
I'm working with limited knowledge from both sides (always a combo for
success) but can you clarify what you mean by a custom maven install? Are
you talking just for the dependency resolution stuff or are we going to need
to change so much about maven that's darn near a fork?
Wb
On 6/9/06,
Wendell Beckwith wrote:
I'm working with limited knowledge from both sides (always a combo for
success) but can you clarify what you mean by a custom maven install? Are
you talking just for the dependency resolution stuff or are we going to
need
to change so much about maven that's darn near
Is there a common pattern people follow when a jar you need isn't available
on ibiblio, but also isn't compatible with the ASF license wise? In
particular I'm finding one project that requires the latest version of
javassist (3.1), which for whatever reason hasn't been published on ibiblio.
Can
If you don't have a corporate repo then
http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-installing-3rd-party-jars.html
else
http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-deploying-3rd-party-jars.html
Ben
On 6/9/06, Jesse Kuhnert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a common pattern people follow when a
On 6/9/06, Jesse Kuhnert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a common pattern people follow when a jar you need isn't available
on ibiblio, but also isn't compatible with the ASF license wise? In
particular I'm finding one project that requires the latest version of
javassist (3.1), which for
Please, file an issue with eventually a patch and we'll fix it.
Emmanuel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Good day!
I’ve tried to checkout my project from SVN repository using your SCM
adapter. It seems that it works a little bit incorrectly during parsing
SVN output. (line “Unknown file
On 6/9/06, Jesse Kuhnert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a common pattern people follow when a jar you need isn't available
on ibiblio, but also isn't compatible with the ASF license wise? In
particular I'm finding one project that requires the latest version of
javassist (3.1), which for
Ah perfect, thank you Tomasz.
On 6/9/06, Tomasz Pik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/9/06, Jesse Kuhnert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a common pattern people follow when a jar you need isn't
available
on ibiblio, but also isn't compatible with the ASF license wise? In
particular I'm
I started this thread over on the user list but haven't seen any replies
of merit.
http://www.nabble.com/multi-module-build-overriding-dependency-versions-
t1758915.html
In summary, I have two projects: domain and services. Both projects are
at version 1.2.2-SNAPSHOT. services 1.2.2-SNAPSHOT
Hi there,
This issue is about adding an 'implementation' parameter to the
@parameter annotation for mojo fields, so you can specify a default
implementation in case the field's type is an interface.
Since it's a new feature, I'm asking whether this should be applied to
the 2.0.x branch too?
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Mike Perham wrote:
Hi,
It's a bug. See http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-1245.
-- Kenney
I started this thread over on the user list but haven't seen any replies
of merit.
http://www.nabble.com/multi-module-build-overriding-dependency-versions-
t1758915.html
In
On 6/9/06, Kenney Westerhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi there,
This issue is about adding an 'implementation' parameter to the
@parameter annotation for mojo fields, so you can specify a default
implementation in case the field's type is an interface.
Since it's a new feature, I'm asking
it's ok for me if all tests are ok. With it, mojo will can evoluate without
waiting maven 2.1
Emmanuel
Kenney Westerhof a écrit :
Hi there,
This issue is about adding an 'implementation' parameter to the
@parameter annotation for mojo fields, so you can specify a default
implementation in
Thanks for the pointer, Kenney. I have attached a patch and patched
binary to the issue which fixes the problem for me.
-Original Message-
From: Kenney Westerhof [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 10:26 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: multi-module build
The manifest creation has changed in the last release of the m1 jar
plugin [1], which I did a few weeks ago. It was basically done in
accordance with this issue [1]. I discussed it with Stephane a few days
ago as he implemented the same thing in the m1 war plugin (to be
released soon) and we
[My link numbering got messed up, it's difficult to count until three
when you haven't had coffee yet...]
Lukas Theussl wrote:
The manifest creation has changed in the last release of the m1 jar
plugin [1], which I did a few weeks ago. It was basically done in
accordance with this issue
Kenney, could you check it0105 and it0107 and merge its revisions them
to the 2.0.x branch, or does it not apply?
Thanks
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
Carlos,
Kenney, could you check it0105 and it0107 and merge its revisions them
to the 2.0.x branch, or does it not apply?
it0107 is related to MNG-2293 which is only applied to trunk, so that one
doesn't make any sense to commit to the 2.0.x branch.
On 6/9/06, Kenney Westerhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
Carlos,
Kenney, could you check it0105 and it0107 and merge its revisions them
to the 2.0.x branch, or does it not apply?
it0107 is related to MNG-2293 which is only applied to trunk, so that one
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
[snip]
it0105.. that's a long time ago. Looking at the issue (MRESOURCES-18),
it's intended for 2.2 (although it's fixed in trunk so it'll be in 2.1
too).
I haven't found the cause for this bug yet, but the problem does not
occur in 2.0.x, so
+1, but considering it an exception to the rule, not a change to the rule.
I'd rather we were doing .x releases every 6 months instead.
- Brett
Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
it's ok for me if all tests are ok. With it, mojo will can evoluate
without waiting maven 2.1
Emmanuel
Kenney Westerhof a
Hello.
Please CC me on reply, because I am not subscribed to this list. Thank you.
I am trying to create support for building of Eclipse plugins and
features using Maven 2 without changing it or patching it significantly.
I want to be able to have Eclipse/OSGi bundles stored in Maven
24 matches
Mail list logo
