On 16/05/2009, at 6:44 AM, Paul Gier wrote:
Ok, it's fixed. Thanks for the suggestions! Brian are the
requirements for the source distribution defined somewhere? So I
can make sure I'm not missing anything?
What you have now looks right to me.
I would personally not bother with the
On 16/05/2009, at 5:06 AM, Stephane Nicoll wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Benjamin Bentmann <
benjamin.bentm...@udo.edu> wrote:
Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Fri May 15 2009 12:18:59 pm Brian Fox wrote:
I don't think we should go out of our way yet to convert
everything to
java5, preser
>
>
> You have to understand that although the problem might seem trivial, fixes
> for problems like this can't break existing builds. That makes even the
> simplest fix challenging.
>
Not only that, it needs to cooperate with other functionality... just like
we found with the previous patch. It w
On May 15, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Joerg Hohwiller wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I think you are referring to one of the other patches that was
submitted, not what I committed to the MNG-624 branch.
MNG-624 or maven-2.1.x-MNG-624 ?
I think it was maven-2.1.x-MNG-624. I
Hi Jason,
Thanks for your log.
Yes I think your changes are corrects. Could you please merge them to
the branch too [1]?
Cheers,
Vincent
[1]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/branches/maven-site-plugin-doxia-1.1
2009/5/15 :
> Author: jvanzyl
> Date: Fri May 15 15:06:30 2009
> N
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
- If I understand the new configuration for Checkstyle 5 (haven't used
it yet myself), you have changed the configuration for
HtmlPackage/JavadocPackage compared to how it used to work.
Not sure whether that's related to Dennis' remarks but it appears the
recent changes
>
>
> Do you need simple IT-projects that I shall attach to MNG-4161 and related?
>
Sample ITs for sure, and some level of detail in a proposal like these:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVENUSER/User+Proposals
Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Hi Paul,
Author: pgier
Date: Fri May 15 16:16:59 2009
New Revision: 775216
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=775216&view=rev
Log:
Add configuration for creating the src dist files during a realease.
Added:
maven/ant-tasks/branches/maven-ant-tasks-2.0.x/src/ass
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi again,
>> Your better bet will be to try and get this documented so it can be
>> implemented in 3.x.
no change to see some improvement about version maintenance in 2.x?
See the list of issues I just posted and also look at the votes.
Thanks
Jö
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Brian,
> Your better bet will be to try and get this documented so it can be
> implemented in 3.x.
I would surely NOT mind. What do you expect?
A new xdoc? Or a diff to the actual source of
http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi there,
After I got lost in the thread "Progress on support for large projects"
and opened MNG-4161, I started to collect everything that is going on
in JIRA about this. I added this to MNG-4161 but also wanted to
point this out here:
* MNG-624
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Joerg Hohwiller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> > I think you are referring to one of the other patches that was
> > submitted, not what I committed to the MNG-624 branch.
>
> MNG-624 or maven-2.1.x-MNG-624 ?
>
> >>
> >>
> >> A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
> I think you are referring to one of the other patches that was
> submitted, not what I committed to the MNG-624 branch.
MNG-624 or maven-2.1.x-MNG-624 ?
>>
>>
>> A big problem could be the encoding issue if you store XML in a string
>> and the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
>
> Off topic.
>
> Actually I believe this isn't true anymore.
>
> See http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MECLIPSE-344
> "all dependent artefacts that are available in your eclipse-workspace
> will be attached as project references even if they are not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Stephen,
>
> If A(1.0) has root(1.2-SNAPSHOT) as a parent it should never have been
> released as the pom for A(1.0) is based on content from root(1.2-SNAPSHOT)
> which is subject to change... which means that a released pom does not have
> a defi
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Joerg Hohwiller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
>
> > By inheriting the version, groupId, etc. from the parent - yes. The
> > release plugin still handles the pom transformations and the tagging
> > (SCM URLs, snapshot to release
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Benjamin Bentmann <
benjamin.bentm...@udo.edu> wrote:
> Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> On Fri May 15 2009 12:18:59 pm Brian Fox wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think we should go out of our way yet to convert everything to
>>> java5, preserving 1.4 compatibility (essentially 2.0/2.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
> By inheriting the version, groupId, etc. from the parent - yes. The
> release plugin still handles the pom transformations and the tagging
> (SCM URLs, snapshot to release version, release to next snapshot
> version, etc.)
But there is nothing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi there,
>>
>> OK. So you would NOT mind if maven adds some new features that
>> are compatible to older versions of maven.
>> Thats all I am fighting for.
>>
>
> No fighting required, just make a patch. If it's truly backwards compatible,
> then th
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Can we move this out of here and do in some other part of the
configuration processing?
I will investigate. The challenge is that we definitively want
expressions in the plugin configuration to be evaluated lately and say
not during the initial model construction because
Hi Paul,
Author: pgier
Date: Fri May 15 16:16:59 2009
New Revision: 775216
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=775216&view=rev
Log:
Add configuration for creating the src dist files during a realease.
Added:
maven/ant-tasks/branches/maven-ant-tasks-2.0.x/src/assembly/
maven/ant-tasks
Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Fri May 15 2009 12:18:59 pm Brian Fox wrote:
I don't think we should go out of our way yet to convert everything to
java5, preserving 1.4 compatibility (essentially 2.0/2.1 compatibility)
should be considered. However if there's a reason, like the checkstyle
update requies
On Fri May 15 2009 12:18:59 pm Brian Fox wrote:
> I don't think we should go out of our way yet to convert everything to
> java5, preserving 1.4 compatibility (essentially 2.0/2.1 compatibility)
> should be considered. However if there's a reason, like the checkstyle
> update requies java 5, then w
I don't think we should go out of our way yet to convert everything to
java5, preserving 1.4 compatibility (essentially 2.0/2.1 compatibility)
should be considered. However if there's a reason, like the checkstyle
update requies java 5, then we should do it and set a prerequisite of maven
2.2.0.
O
A couple of things that caught my attention in this commit. First some
general ones:
- Please commit each issue by itself, as it makes rolling back stuff
much easier.
- If you can, please try to to code beautifications in separate commits
if possible. It tends to distract from the real issue that
I myself have been very conservative about Java updates because I still have
to support Java 1.3 applications. I learned to use Maven with JDK6 and
target 1.3 environment.
for this reason I'm +1 with [A] or [B] (depending on the status of SNAPSHOT
plugins that in some cas include major fix compared
Hi
Recent discussions about the Checkstyle Plugin has raised the question
of requiring Java 5 in Maven Plugins.
We will IIUC require Java 5 for Maven 2.2. So when do we start using it
in our plugins?
[A] We start using it across the board for the next release of every
plugin that wants to use Ja
We should have a policy discussion about the use of Java 5 in our
plugins. I will start another thread for that.
Your question here about the Checkstyle Plugin depends on the outcome of
the policy discussion.
nicolas de loof wrote:
> Hi
> You may have noticed discussion on user list about checkst
thomas, checkout the whole maven-scm project and do a mvn clean install from
the top
btw, we should move this discussion over to the general dev list, since scm-dev
will be dropped soon.
LieGrue,
strub
- Ursprüngliche Mail
> Von: Thomas Schüttel
> An: scm-...@maven.apache.org
> Ge
Ralph Goers schrieb:
>> They just shouldn't change things significantly without good
>> arguments.
>
> Which are only the ones you agree with?
I am really just trying to warn you about doing something dangerous.
Mixing release versions with snapshot versions. The release plugin takes
care of th
30 matches
Mail list logo
