I think it's fine. I don't think it's going to break anything. For some
reason these changes got left behind and I had to add them.
На нд, 27.10.2019 г. в 21:00 ч. Robert Scholte
написа:
> I thought this was already fixed (as the issue is closed). I remember we
> had a discussion about the solut
I thought this was already fixed (as the issue is closed). I remember we had a
discussion about the solution, just want to be sure you don't break anything.
This should already have been covered by an integrationtest, so I'm suprised by
this change.
On 27-10-2019 19:46:25, Petar Tahchiev wrote:
Hi Robert,
yes I noticed today it somehow was left behind. As the message in the
commit says it is for MRELEASE-985 and we need it to be able to override
certain dependency versions from command line.
На нд, 27.10.2019 г. в 20:35 ч. Robert Scholte
написа:
> Hi Petar,
>
> Is this related to http
Hi Petar,
Is this related to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRELEASE-985
[https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRELEASE-985] ?
Robert
On 27-10-2019 08:22:12, ptahch...@apache.org wrote:
This is an automated email from the ASF dual-hosted git repository.
ptahchiev pushed a commit to b
hi,
Wondering if it makes sense to extend option to javadoc.io.
For example, google gson (https://github.com/google/gson) has pointed their
javadoc to https://www.javadoc.io/doc/com.google.code.gson/gson on their
README.md. But currently, maven-javadoc-plugin will only try to fetch
https://githu
As per https://github.com/apache/maven-indexer/pull/40 - is there anything else
we’d like to get into the next release? There are currently some unreleased bug
fixes on master that it seems a shame not to push out.
Nick
TLDR: We can do better than, but who is in control? lifecycle-owner,
plugin-owner or pom-owner?
I think we all recognize the issues we're trying to solve, but to me this
proposal is not the right solution.
In general there are 2 issues:
1. provide a mechanism that makes sure some executions are
