beta-1 is actually ready IMO, the two open issues are minor and can be
postponed.
However, I do not understand why you say that MNG-3402 is dependent on a
doxia release? The aim of MNG-3402 is exactly to make maven independent
of the doxia version. If your intention is to bumb to doxia-beta-1
+1
2008/3/15, Dan Tran [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
+1 have been living on the bleeding edge 2.5-snapshot for quite some time
now.
Thanks very much for pushing this out.
-D
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Paul Benedict [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
+1
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Siarhei
Hi,
Puzzled by the situation, that some files have their svn:keywords set to
Author Date Id Revision
while others use
Author Date Id Revision
I did some googling and discovered that the first syntax is not valid.
The svn-eol-style.txt for the site is already updated [0], please do the
same
However, I do not understand why you say that MNG-3402 is dependent on a
doxia release? The aim of MNG-3402 is exactly to make maven independent of
the doxia version.
As Brett already said in JIRA, this might not work. For instance, the
DefaultPluginManager in maven-core depends on MavenReport
Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
There's no need for maven-plugin-plugin in this pom. It is already in
the plugin parent pom.
If it doesn't cause any harm I believe it's still good to have for the
sake of better safe than sorry. Especially for those plugins that seem
not to inherit from
We should probably wait until after 2.0.9 is released, bump
2.0.10-SNAPSHOT to beta-1 and then we have time if there are any issues.
If there is any risk, we should not shove it in 2.0.9 at the last
minute.
-Original Message-
From: Lukas Theussl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday,
I'm -1 on this commit for several reasons:
First and foremost, there was no proposal on the wiki or any discussion
on the dev list that I can see for this.
Second, the use case is not very clear and implementation questionable.
If this functionality is needed for some reason, it should be
I also thought this was a little sketchy and is why I don't like the
cross project commit privs because people think it's just ok to do
this kind of thing.
Due to a limitation in Archiva not being able to deal with a single
URL (which the other repositories managers don't have a problem
The proposal has been updated :
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Mirror+Settings+and+File+reposito
ries and a tested patch applied to
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3461 so everyone can check it out.
-Original Message-
From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Jason,
Saying that this commit is Archiva-motivated is an incorrect rush to
judgment and is insulting.
Unprovoked and inaccurate attacks against members of the committer pool
are also unhealthy to the community at large.
Brian's concerns about this change are valid as is, and need to be
On 15-Mar-08, at 9:35 PM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
Jason,
Saying that this commit is Archiva-motivated is an incorrect rush to
judgment and is insulting.
Nico, what was your motivation for the change? You can clarify as I
obviously rushed to judgement assuming it was something you
I was motivated by http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3407 and some
personal headaches, mostly with dealing with working with OSS on a
laptop within restricted environments, (ie. no, or bad internet
connection, such as a service station, while waiting for your car to be
fixed.)
I have a
12 matches
Mail list logo
