Let's discuss this on Thursday. We just need to make sure to write up
summary emails from the day and post them back to the list for further
discussion.
Ralph
Oleg Gusakov wrote:
Ralph Goers wrote:
I have no problem with including the wagon. I've read the wiki pages
on Mercury and I'm not
If the Mercury wagon passes the unit tests I have no problem with
incorporating it. However, my +1 is only advisory (as is yours) since I
am not a member of the Maven PMC.
Ralph
Oleg Gusakov wrote:
Clarification: this vote is for promoting mercury and start using
mercury wagon.
Ralph - can
Clarification: this vote is for promoting mercury and start using
mercury wagon.
Ralph - can I count you as +1 on this vote?
All other discussions - like dependency resolution - are outside of that
scope. Sorry for bringing those up in this thread.
Oleg
Ralph Goers wrote:
I have no problem
Ralph Goers wrote:
I have no problem with including the wagon. I've read the wiki pages
on Mercury and I'm not satisifed with the dependecy resolution
improvements. As I've said before, any scheme that relies only on
resolving artifact versions isn't going to solve the problem.
Ralph,
Probl
+1, it solves my bug in izpack-maven-plugin
Thanks
-D
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Olivier Lamy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you mean/want ?
> There is a staging repo
>
> And snaphots are here
> http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot-repository/org/apache/maven/shared/maven-filter
On 4-Oct-08, at 3:30 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I have no problem with including the wagon. I've read the wiki pages
on Mercury and I'm not satisifed with the dependecy resolution
improvements. As I've said before, any scheme that relies only on
resolving artifact versions isn't going to solve
I have no problem with including the wagon. I've read the wiki pages on
Mercury and I'm not satisifed with the dependecy resolution
improvements. As I've said before, any scheme that relies only on
resolving artifact versions isn't going to solve the problem.
We can talk more about this on Thu
