+1
2014-07-07 21:24 GMT+02:00 Hervé BOUTEMY :
> Hi,
>
> We solved 13 issues:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11146&styleName=Html&version=19228
>
> There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=111
Hi,
We solved 13 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11146&styleName=Html&version=19228
There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=11146&status=1
Staging repo:
http://repository.apache.org/con
ok, release cancelled
the (stupid) problem is fixed, I'll redo the release
Regards,
Hervé
Le lundi 7 juillet 2014 12:26:52 jieryn a écrit :
> -1 ... non-binding; site:run fails with:
>
> https://gist.github.com/jieryn/a8dc02b2e6a43d89cd1c
>
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY w
-1 ... non-binding; site:run fails with:
https://gist.github.com/jieryn/a8dc02b2e6a43d89cd1c
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We solved 13 issues:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11146&styleName=Html&version=19228
>
> There are still
IfIAmNotLocalNexusAdmin>local-repositories are always the first repositories to
be searched
IfIAmLocalNexusAdmin>then promote to local nexus and search local nexus..local
nexus repo will be the first searched repo
then central
then the plethora of maven mirrors
I like the idea of package affinit
Hi,
@Paul:
This would also have downsides like having to bind yourself to a process
where you need to download the remote repository's index at least once.
These are usually not too small... If I recall correctly, Maven Central's
index was something like 100 MB in .gz. (I'm talking off the top of
I agree with anyone/everyone who says we should get rid of the idea of a
local repository. It should just be looked at as a local "remote" repo with
some default intermediary repository manager built-in to Maven. Jason, is
that what you're referring to?
Cheers,
Paul
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 9:31
Yup, this is essentially what routing rules are in Nexus. Would likely make
sense to move this logic into Maven to speed up lookups.
I also think trying to have each dependency mark where it comes from as
cumbersome.
On Jul 7, 2014, at 9:45 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> Personally, I’ve always
Hi,
+1 for Daniel Kulp's idea.
Furthermore, I have the feeling that adding the option of per
artifact is bound to lead to headaches.
On the other hand, if you could specify groupId includes/excludes for
repositories, things could be much better in terms of resolution times.
I frankly think that
Personally, I’ve always wondered if the entries should have an
and tags to say this repository should only be searched
for these artifacts (like org.apache.*:*). Should help speed the builds by not
looking at every repository for every artifact when we know they are in central.
Dan
On J
Here's the link for this week:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/113247990055413254822/events/c0kc3ecm0sndjj8evs7i1ijnk0g
I'll have a follow up on the POM Evolved proposal and I'd like to talk about
how to test all our plugins in preparation against the latest version of Maven
so we can start seein
On 2014-07-07, 1:56, Mark Derricutt wrote:
That would in part align things with Aether's somewhat annoying/retarded
behaviour of saying "oh I see com.acme:special tool:1.0-alpha-1" but it
came from repo-1, not repo-2 - so "suck it up - I can't resolve this.".
I can understand the idea behind t
12 matches
Mail list logo
