OK, I've added fixes I care about.
-Dan
Dan Fabulich wrote:
-1, though I could be convinced to change my mind if we felt like we were in
a rush for some reason.
I found a number of documentation-level bugs that I think should be
straightforward to fix... I'm checking in a few fixes now.
-
-1, though I could be convinced to change my mind if we felt like we were
in a rush for some reason.
I found a number of documentation-level bugs that I think should be
straightforward to fix... I'm checking in a few fixes now.
-Dan
Vincent Siveton wrote:
Hi,
We solved less than 20 issues
Not using it, but I think it is useful in the future
+1 to graduate and release it
-D
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Stephen Connolly
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> cross posting to maven dev list
>
> oh and in case anyone has any doubts, I'm +1 ;-)
>
> Sent from my iPod
>
> On 28 Aug 2008, at
Issue Subscription
Filter: Design & Best Practices (28 issues)
Subscriber: mavendevlist
Key Summary
MNG-2184Possible problem with @aggregator and forked lifecycles
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-2184
MNG-612 implement conflict resolution techniques
htt
Exactly. I don't think we need to reopen this up to a bunch more
changes, we can make more releases later. If I thought we would be
opening a can of worms for this originally, I probably wouldn't have
been in favor of it. My understanding was that 2.0.10 became 2.1.0 and
more changes would follow o
+0.5 We should release that code that we did all that RC testing on, right
away, and I don't care what we call it; I thought that was what John was
proposing in his earlier [PROPOSAL].
-Dan
Brian E. Fox wrote:
We've come this far, why not make 2.1.0 right now as we were doing
2.0.10? I don
The question is at what point do you say "no new stuff" on 2.1? IMO,
there needs to be a fair amount of time for "unstable" things to be
introduced in 2.1 before a formal release is made. In other words, I'd
like to see a process where we have a branch that is stable and a branch
in "developm
Sure. I updated the issue. I'll try to get some sample tests checked in
as soon as I can.
Jason van Zyl wrote:
I left some initial questions and comments in JIRA. I don't care where
you answer them but I would like a little more background before
delving into code. Primarily sample projects to
We've come this far, why not make 2.1.0 right now as we were doing
2.0.10? I don't see any benefit to waiting longer. Just do it and then
we can start adding more things to 2.1.1 or 2.2
-Original Message-
From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:29 PM
T
I left some initial questions and comments in JIRA. I don't care where
you answer them but I would like a little more background before
delving into code. Primarily sample projects to see what you intend.
It's hard to grok entirely from your description.
On 28-Aug-08, at 4:11 PM, Ralph Goer
I am OK with this.
You may or may not have noticed but I created branch maven-2.1.x-MNG-624
last night. It contains the fix for MNG-624. I have created integration
tests but haven't committed them yet. I will soon. Before committing
these to the 2.1.x branch I'd really like folks to try it
Hi,
We solved less than 20 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11141&styleName=Html&version=12300
There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=11141&status=1
Staging repo:
http://people.apache.o
Hi,
2008/8/28 Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
...
> Finally, I think it's more correct to throw a MojoFailureException if you
> get an ArtifactNotFoundException, and keep the MojoExecEx for the ArtResEx
Brett proposed a very good question here. The Javadoc [1] and [2]
explain the differences b
Hi everyone,
So, it seems that we're all in agreement about the rough outline for
2.1.x and beyond. I've renamed the current RC branch to be 2.1.0-M1-RC
to make this the first milestone toward some as-yet-undetermined feature
list for 2.1.0.
So, let's talk about that feature list. From earli
Hi,
Some thoughts...
I think you need to update your license header template to the new
format :)
Also, I think "type" is a more familiar name than "packaging", and you
might want to add classifiers.
Finally, I think it's more correct to throw a MojoFailureException if
you get an Artif
I've renamed the current RC to 2.1.0-M1-RC12-SNAPSHOT, for this reason.
If we can put together a plan for the GA release of 2.1.0, I'd prefer to
have that in place before we do a final release from this RC branch.
Preferably something we can achieve in the next <2 months given current
resource
I've had a look at that code, and I think it is doing something other than
what is required here!
As I see it, the display-plugin-updates goal should tell you of an update
that is relevant to the *current pom only*.
So if my parent pom specifies a version... then even if there is a newer
version
Can you run with -X and attach the output? This isn't enough to diagnose
the error, but I suspect it's a permissions (or, open files) problem on
windows. I'm not sure this is specific to any maven version, TBH.
-john
Geoffrey Wiseman wrote:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 4:15 PM, John Casey <[EMAIL
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 4:15 PM, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> One bug was identified in 2.0.10-RC10 last Friday night. This release
> candidate addresses that issue. You can find it here:
>
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jdcasey/stage/apache-maven/2.0.10-RC11/org/apache/mav
cross posting to maven dev list
oh and in case anyone has any doubts, I'm +1 ;-)
Sent from my iPod
On 28 Aug 2008, at 12:03, "Stephen Connolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Hi Everyone,
The versions-maven-plugin is currently in the *sandbox*.
This is the first step for a future 1.0.0-alpha
Anyone?
--jason
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems that with svn 1.4.4 the maven-release-plugin works just fine... whats
> going on with SVN 1.5.x?
>
> --jason
>
>
> On Aug 21, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
>
>> I'm having lots of problems us
Hi Mark,
2008/8/28 Mark Hobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/8/28 Benjamin Bentmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Hi Vincent,
>>
>>> Also, WDYT to do the same for faq.fml?
>>
>> +1, life should be easier if our source files are consistently encoded.
>>
>> Maybe I find some time this evening, feel free to
I'll clean up the tags today, thanks for the reminder. However, I'm not
sure I know enough about JIRA permissions to give you access to clean up
the Fix-For versions out there...probably better to leave this to Brett
or Jason, or someone who's more familiar with JIRA's admin.
Paul Benedict wro
On 27-Aug-08, at 5:59 PM, James William Dumay wrote:
Jason,
I'm cool sticking with the Nexus index format - it works and there
has been a successful uptake with different tool vendors - so it
seems to be the defacto standard. We will certainly be using it in a
future version of Archiva.
See MPLUGIN-136
John Casey wrote:
I think I've found the issue. Once I've tested this theory out a little
more, I'll file a JIRA issue, and get this fixed with an integration
test in place.
Henrique Prange wrote:
Hi John,
I compared the contents of the artifacts generated by 2.0.9 and
2.0.
I did a quick scan in jira, but couldn't sort out the proper project. I
figured someone would correct me. ;-)
Brett Porter wrote:
Should this be moved to MPLUGIN, or was it a core fix? It's currently
set as fixed in 2.0.11 :)
- Brett
On 28/08/2008, at 12:10 PM, John Casey (JIRA) wrote:
2008/8/28 Benjamin Bentmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Vincent,
>
>> Also, WDYT to do the same for faq.fml?
>
> +1, life should be easier if our source files are consistently encoded.
>
> Maybe I find some time this evening, feel free to join forces ;-)
It's great that you guys are sorting this all
Hi Vincent,
Also, WDYT to do the same for faq.fml?
+1, life should be easier if our source files are consistently encoded.
Maybe I find some time this evening, feel free to join forces ;-)
Benjamin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Eugene Kuleshov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Milos Kleint wrote:
>>
>> as a user of the nexus indexer (in netbeans integration), I'm hoping
>> this kind of statements only mean compatible changes in the index that
>> will not break users of the old APIs.
>> Can
Milos Kleint wrote:
>
> as a user of the nexus indexer (in netbeans integration), I'm hoping
> this kind of statements only mean compatible changes in the index that
> will not break users of the old APIs.
> Can you confirm?
>
Absolutely. But I still recommend to update to the latest when yo
Hi Benjamin,
Thanks to update these files!
Also, WDYT to do the same for faq.fml?
Cheers,
Vincent
2008/8/26 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Author: bentmann
> Date: Tue Aug 26 06:36:10 2008
> New Revision: 689071
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=689071&view=rev
> Log:
> o Changed encoding of s
31 matches
Mail list logo
