Re: Infra question: One commit -> multiple issues.

Well there is one flaky test on master, so we may need to either ignore the flaky test or see about fixing it On Wed 11 Jan 2017 at 00:10, Christian Schulte wrote: > Am 01/11/17 um 00:52 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > > > Currently always running against the master branch of

Re: Infra question: One commit -> multiple issues.

Am 01/11/17 um 00:52 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > Currently always running against the master branch of integration tests... Good to know. So the IT failure for that job is due to the missing update to the IT (update to the core makes an existing IT fail). Thanks.

Re: Infra question: One commit -> multiple issues.

Currently always running against the master branch of integration tests... the Jenkins plugin with resolving matching branches is not released yet On Tue 10 Jan 2017 at 23:42, Christian Schulte wrote: > Am 01/09/17 um 23:53 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > > > Yes. And the branch

Re: Moving forward on 3.5.0

Yes that is my current working theory. It fails and passes at random on I think the Windows nodes On Tue 10 Jan 2017 at 23:36, Guillaume Boué wrote: > Yes, was following as well. Looks like the test > > MavenITmng3599useHttpProxyForWebDAVTest > > < >

Re: Infra question: One commit -> multiple issues.

Am 01/09/17 um 23:53 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > Yes. And the branch job will be deleted automatically after you delete the > branch (we can set an orphaned item strategy if we want to keep them around > for a while) Hi, can you please take a look at the maven-jenkinsfile/MNG-5958 job. Did it

Re: Moving forward on 3.5.0

Yes, was following as well. Looks like the test MavenITmng3599useHttpProxyForWebDAVTest didn't pass. Weird because it passed

Re: Moving forward on 3.5.0

https://builds.apache.org/job/maven-jenkinsfile/job/MNG-6117/ build in progress... let's see how it does On 10 January 2017 at 22:01, Guillaume Boué wrote: > I created the branch for MNG-6117 with commit: > https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=comm >

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

Am 01/10/17 um 09:30 schrieb Anton Tanasenko: > 3.3.9 (in 5805) introduced an additional syntax for specifying lifecycle > goals as > '<..>' > in addition to '<...>[goals as text]', but due to > implementation, it was also supported using the 'phases' parent node and > the test was using that one

Re: Moving forward on 3.5.0

I created the branch for MNG-6117 with commit: https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=commit;h=bd98ae6a3de8d443f5b3d2f895f2348c2912ae05 I will merge the branch into master on Monday the 16th if there are no objections. Thanks, Guillaume Le 09/01/2017 à 12:06, Stephen

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

I remember MNG-5805 and noticed the change of the signature. I expected this code to be Maven-internal only, so it looked fine to me. Now it seems it is not. We had the same issue when improving toolchains, which required a signature change as well (being able to merge global with user

JDK 9 EA Build 151 is available on java.net

Hi Robert & Kristian, Best wishes for the New Year. Dalibor and I will be at FOSDEM '17, Brussels 4 & 5 February. Let us know if you will be there, hopefully we can meet up ! As i mentioned in an email earlier today*- JDK 9 Early Access* b151 is available

Re: Lets talk about our changes openly. maven-surefire git commit: [SUREFIRE-1324] Surefire incorrectly suppresses exceptions when closing resources.

Sorry I could not get back to ML earlier. I got home early morning and could not work in ASF. I spent hours around my Nisan. It was so cold that my car could not start up and the electronics in Nisan was totally crazy and could not lock the car. We moved father's car from pumping station because

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

It sounds to me that the intent for 3.3.9 was that it would work with and the test confirmed it as working that way. As such the impression I get is that this is neither a false positive nor a false negative test. There should have been a test for 3.3.9, and we are intentionally changing the

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

3.3.9 (in 5805) introduced an additional syntax for specifying lifecycle goals as '<..>' in addition to '<...>[goals as text]', but due to implementation, it was also supported using the 'phases' parent node and the test was using that one as well. This broke binary compatibility, which is fixed