Hi John,
no regressions found with Mac OSX 1.5.0_16.
Cheers
John Casey wrote:
Hi everyone,
It's that time again. For the 2.2.0 release of Maven, we're trying to
keep the number of issues fairly limited to regressions, issues with
quite a few votes that are low-hanging fruit, and some sort
+1
Brian E. Fox wrote:
Another smallish release that's been waiting a while. I'm going to work
with Oleg next week to have the dependency plugin use mercury so I'd
like to get the current fixes out in a stable form first.
Release Notes:
+1
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
This is really to get the ball rolling for Maven 3.x. While I have some
gracious guinea pigs who are arduously pummeling this code base I
wouldn't recommend anyone use this in production. If you want to try it
and give feedback that's great, but we have a lot of
+1
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Hi
It time to release our Stylus skin. To start off we need to get a new
release of maven-skins parent 4 out, so that we later can release
maven-stylus-skin. This is to comply with the new with the new Privacy
policy.
Diff of the POM since the last release:
No regressions found.
Cheers
Brian E. Fox wrote:
(once again with the right url)
This fixes the NPE reported in the last RC:
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3921 (Thanks Benjamin and Henrique)
Here's the list of issues fixed in 2.0.10:
+1
Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hi,
In preparation of resources plugin, I'd like to release the shared
library maven-filtering version 1.0-beta-2.
We solved 6 issues :
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=14488styleName=HtmlprojectId=11761Create=Create
Staging repo:
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
+1
Just a remark : sometime you replace integration-tests by its otherwise by
it. Perhaps we could unify them .
For example you propose to rename core-integration-tests-support to
core-it-support and not to core-its-support.
+1
+1
John Casey wrote:
Hi everyone,
After fixing 70 issues and spending about 2 months going through release
candidate after release candidate, we finally have a stable codebase!
To that end, I'd like to put Maven 2.1.0-M1 up for a vote. The release
notes are here:
John, no problems encountered. Great work!
John Casey wrote:
Hi,
I've fixed MNG-3748, where illegal elements in the settings.xml were not
triggering build failure. Anyway, this release candidate includes a fix
for that issue:
http://people.apache.org/~jdcasey/stage/current-maven-RC/
+1
nicolas de loof wrote:
+1
2008/9/9 Arnaud HERITIER [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1
Arnaud
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
+1
--jason
On Sep 9, 2008, at 7:38 AM, Brian E. Fox wrote:
Time to release the enforcer with all its new rules.
The plugin is
Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
What encoding exactly would you like to set? The encoding of the file
contents? This is not necessary. Encoding is only required when one has
to convert between bytes and characters but the (un-)archiving of files
is merely a byte-to-byte copy, i.e. operates on a
Brian E. Fox wrote:
Until I see a definitive list of the Milestones for 2.1, I vote for #2.
I am mostly afraid of going down the rat hole that was the old 2.1 with
forever changing scope. I don't see any problem with calling this 2.1
and putting in the other features into 2.2, what's the
Hi all,
I've hit upon what I think are encoding issues with the dependency
and/or resource plugin, and I'd like to sound out what the others' take
on it is.
So imagine a scenario in which one has a module that encapsulates all
web resources (images, css, js, etc ...) which is shared amongst
Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Do you filter the images? AFAIK, the Resources Plugin should not alter a
file's contents during copying unless filtering is enabled on the
resource set.
Yep - that is indeed the case, I do filter and that is most likely the
root of the issue.
If you filter your
Brian E. Fox wrote:
Exactly. I don't think we need to reopen this up to a bunch more
changes, we can make more releases later. If I thought we would be
opening a can of worms for this originally, I probably wouldn't have
been in favor of it. My understanding was that 2.0.10 became 2.1.0 and
more
Daniel Kulp wrote:
RC11 is looking pretty good to me. I've built several things with it,
re-setup my eclipse workspaces from fresh checkouts (eclipse:eclipse), etc...
Haven't done a deploy yet (that's next), but everything else is looking
pretty good to me.
I've done both a snapshot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, John Casey wrote:
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to point you to the message I sent to users@ telling
people they should go try 2.0.10-RC9. This release candidate
incorporates the fixes for the final two issues from RC8, and looks
like it's our
+1
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
+1
Arnaud
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 11:33 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1D
On 17/08/2008, at 6:27 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
Is there any reason that the 2.1 branch cannot require java 1.5 to compile
and execute?
Ralph
Hi John,
no problems encountered so far on all projects tested. Thanks for
excellent work!
Cheers
John Casey wrote:
Hi,
As you've undoubtedly noticed, the RC7 distro didn't last very long
before a nasty bug showed up...actually two, but they were related.
At any rate, they're fixed,
Daniel Kulp wrote:
John,
Performance is a bit better, but in a multi-project reactor build, the source
jars are now all wrong. None of the source ends up in the jars. Just
the extra things from the remote-resources.
Yes - I can confirm that. In fact, another symptom of this is
John Casey wrote:
Hi Daniel, Mauro,
In either of these cases, can anyone give me some specific steps (and
the project SVN URL, if possible) to reproduce the problem? I tried
running 'mvn clean source:jar' last night on maven-project and
maven-model, but apparently that's too simplistic to
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Mauro,
Can I have your SVN coordinates and the goals you run to test and I will
set Pico up in Hudson for us to test.
https://svn.codehaus.org/picocontainer/java/2.x/trunk
The uber-build is executed by a simple mvn clean install.
This uber-build works now with
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Mauro,
Here's the result here:
http://ci.sonatype.org/view/Community%20Test%20Projects/job/XSite/3/console
That seem fine?
That's fine but you need to check the actual content of the cobertura
report.
eg open xsite-core/target/site/cobertura/index.html and click on
Brian E. Fox wrote:
I have been saying that the trunk is too changed for 2.1 for a while
also. I think having it as 3.0 is probably the logical thing to do and
then we can really buckle 2.0 down as it should be and start making
these bigger destabilizing fixes/small features to a 2.1 branch cut
Milos Kleint wrote:
please, please, let's not add anything else to trunk (2.1) and
stabilize it. I've been waiting for a stable embeddable version for 2
years and with the number of work (complete rewrites of everything)
in the branches, a stable maven.next looks years ahead again.
Not having
No problems encountered. WRT timing/memory, it now actually seems to
have improved somewhat.
Eg on 50-ish module build:
2.0.9
[INFO] Total time: 7 minutes 24 seconds
[INFO] Finished at: Sat Aug 09 10:25:18 BST 2008
[INFO] Final Memory: 76M/154M
2.0.10-RC6
[INFO] Total time: 6 minutes 20
John Casey wrote:
I've checked the maven core and plugins builds, and they're both running
around 30s longer than with 2.0.9, with slightly less memory
consumption. Other builds I've tried are running nearer to +15s over 2.0.9.
Here's a benchmark done on a sizeable project:
2.0.9
[INFO]
John,
regression has been fixed on Pico build.
Cheers
John Casey wrote:
Hi,
Here's your daily dose of Maven 2.0.10! I've fixed the regressions
pointed out in RC4, and added integration tests to guard against their
reintroduction. The new release candidate can be found here:
John Casey wrote:
Hi,
I've got a new release candidate for people to try out:
http://people.apache.org/~jdcasey/stage/apache-maven/2.0.10-RC4/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/2.0.10-RC4/
Major changes:
- Bumped wagon version to 1.0-beta-4
- Improved handling of mirror definitions without an
Brett Porter wrote:
I believe we should start to knock these off, and prepare for an alpha
release as is, and wanted to see what others thought.
To cover the inevitable questions:
- Why release now?
163 fixes, 32 months since 2.0. 'Nuff said.
I would even make a 2.1-beta-1. Betas are by
Try having a look at this example:
https://svn.codehaus.org/mojo/trunk/sandbox/fit-maven-plugin/src/main/java/org/codehaus/mojo/fit/
Cheers
Claudio Ranieri wrote:
Hi
I am trying to create a maven plugin to jboss wsconsume, but I have a problem
with classloader in plugin.
My plugin is based
+1
Brian E. Fox wrote:
Time to vote on the final Maven 2.0.9 Release. We went through 8 Release
Candidates and fixed all know regressions from 2.0.8 to 2.0.9 during
that time. Note that there were no source changes between RC8 and this
final build.
Release is staged at:
Hi Brian,
no issued encountered on a selection of builds wrt to 2.0.8.
Cheers
Brian E. Fox wrote:
This RC has the following changes over RC4:
*Webdav 1.0-beta-2 instead of beta-1 (This fixes James' issue)
*The webdav extension version that is bundled in core can be
+1
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
Hi,
We solved more than 50 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=13593styleName=HtmlprojectId=11133
Important changes are :
- Add support for WTP 2.0
- Add support for MyEclipse
- Improve RAD6 support
- Posibility to discover projects in the
+1
Daniel Kulp wrote:
To comply with the latest requirements discussed on legal-discuss, we
need a new version of the apache-jar-resource-bundle.
The only change is really the result of discussions and testing around:
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MRRESOURCES-32
Many thanks to David Jencks
+1
Daniel Kulp wrote:
There is a critical bug in 1.0 where the resulting merged NOTICE files
may not be correct. This release is JUST to fix that issue (thus the
1.0.1 version and not 1.1):
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MSHADE-22
Staging area:
http://people.apache.org/~dkulp/stage_shade/
+1
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Hi
To get the latest version of maven-source-plugin into our toolchain, I'd
like to release the shared components parent r635758 as version 9. A
site.xml has been added in this release.
Source:
+1
Brian E. Fox wrote:
It's time to release the next Javadoc plugin. Besides the fixes listed
below, the most important change is the reverting of javadoc acting as
an aggregator. This caused most users tons of grief during releases. The
issue for this is MJAVADOC-137 (reverted MJAVADOC-104)
+1
Lukas Theussl wrote:
I'd like to propose giving commit access to Benjamin.
During the last few months, he has provided patches in so many areas of
Maven that I can't list them all here (various plugins, surefire,
doxia,...), including documentation and translations, and he has not
been
+1
Raphaël Piéroni wrote:
Hi,
Here comes the time for calling the first release of the Maven
Archetype plugin version 2.0-alpha-1.
Staging repo:
http://people.apache.org/~rafale/staging-repo/maven-archetype-plugin/
Staging site:
No staging site now, the new documentation is not yet written.
+1
Dan Fabulich wrote:
Fabrizio found a last-minute bug. I've rolled a new candidate. Let's
vote again!
[Boy, the temptation to let the rules slide on a change this small is
almost irresistable. ;-)]
-Dan
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:53:28 -0800
+1
Dan Fabulich wrote:
With a change as big as Surefire 2.4, there turned out to be a few bugs
still lurking.
We solved 7 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10541styleName=Htmlversion=14016
There are still 38 issues left in JIRA:
+1
Brian E. Fox wrote:
It's been a long time since the last release and we have lots of
improvements/fixes:
Release Notes - Maven 2.x Dependency Plugin - Version 2.0
** Bug
* [MDEP-59] - dependency:unpack can't extract rar archives
* [MDEP-74] - dependencies in test scope
Brian E. Fox wrote:
It's not entirely true that versions don't matter. Alpha or Beta is
really a less important distinction and we are generally trying to move
away from more alpha/beta releases. I would argue that since Maven
requires Shade to release, that the current version should be 1.0 not
David Blevins wrote:
Mauro, is it possible you can publish a new snapshot or update the perms
on the metadata files?
Done both.
Cheers
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
Brian E. Fox wrote:
Good idea. Is the script still there? I seemed to have a hard time
finding it.
/www/people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot-repository/fix-permissions.sh
I think we should move it one level up.
-
To
Mauro Talevi wrote:
Brian E. Fox wrote:
Good idea. Is the script still there? I seemed to have a hard time
finding it.
/www/people.apache.org/repo/m2-snapshot-repository/fix-permissions.sh
I think we should move it one level up.
And possibly enhance script to take repo name as mandatory
+1
Brian E. Fox wrote:
In preparation for releasing the dependency plugin, I'd like to release
the maven-dependency-analyzer 1.0. This has a few fixes documented under
the latest mdep release.
Staged at: http://people.apache.org/~brianf/staging-repository
+1
--Brian
+1
Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to release the Maven Jar Plugin version 2.2.
We solved 26 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12878styleName=HtmlprojectId=11137Create=Create
Staging repo : http://people.apache.org/~olamy/staging-repo
Staging Site :
+1
Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to release the Maven Jar Plugin version 2.2.
We solved 26 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12878styleName=HtmlprojectId=11137Create=Create
Staging repo : http://people.apache.org/~olamy/staging-repo
Staging Site :
+1
Raphaël Piéroni wrote:
Hello,
I would like to prepare the alpha-1 release of the archetypeng stuff.
Preparing that release will need to do these things:
1. move the current archetype code
(svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/archetype/trunk) to a branch
(.../branches/archetype-1.0.x)
2. move
+1 - no problems encountered.
Dan Fabulich wrote:
Hi,
Maven Surefire version 2.4 is back on the runway. A handful of bugs
were fixed since the previous take, including SUREFIRE-416 (which
blocked the release).
Note that I'm still unable to reproduce SUREFIRE-328, which some people
claim
+1
Dan Fabulich wrote:
Hi,
Maven Surefire version 2.4 is on the runway. Hopefully folks have spent
some time trying out the SNAPSHOT version, because we expect ordinary
users to get auto-upgraded to version 2.4 when we decide to release.
This version fixes numerous long-outstanding bugs,
Mauro Talevi wrote:
Hi all,
all showstoppers have been addressed. Second attempt for Maven Surefire
2.3.1 release.
Issues solved:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10541styleName=Htmlversion=13251
Staging repo:
http://people.apache.org/~mauro/staging-repo/
Tag
Marat Radchenko wrote:
Till now I thought that currently 2.4-SNAPSHOT and 2.3.1 are the same thing.
No, they are not - 2.4 will be released shortly and it is a separate dev
branch. Please raise issue only if the build works fine with
2.3.1-SNAPSHOT.
Cheers
Hi all,
all showstoppers have been addressed. Second attempt for Maven Surefire
2.3.1 release.
Issues solved:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10541styleName=Htmlversion=13251
Staging repo:
http://people.apache.org/~mauro/staging-repo/
Tag:
Vincent Siveton wrote:
-1 due to compilation failure with jdk1.4 on tag.
http://rafb.net/p/jVfAXG92.html
Right - I thought the maven plugins parent POM would have fixed the
target/source JDK to 1.4.
I'd continue with vote (would avoid issuing another one) and fix JDK
compat before
Daniel Kulp wrote:
Crap. Second time I've done this in the last couple weeks. :-( Why
the 1.5 javac doesn't flag these things with source/targe set to 1.4 is
beyond me. Eclipse doesn't even flag them when using 1.5 but project
is set to 1.4.
That said, I just figured out how to get
Dan Fabulich wrote:
John Casey wrote:
What you're seeing as overlap is a mixture of concerns in the invoker
plugin. The verifications beanshell really needs to be migrated out to
some sort of proper integration-testing plugin (or, even better, a
plugin that unites invoker and verifier under
Following fixes, new version 1.0-alpha-15 has been staged for release.
Please for vote for its release and to move this version of the sandbox
(and start dev of 1.0-beta-1-SNAPSHOT).
Staging area:
http://people.apache.org/~mauro/staging-repo/
Tag:
Dan Fabulich wrote:
Uh, actually, I need to turn my vote to a -1. :-( I just discovered that
I'm being bitten by MSHADE-5 (and MSHADE-6) every time I go to deploy
the Surefire 2.4-SNAPSHOT. As a result, I deployed a corrupted
SNAPSHOT... yuck!
I just fixed MSHADE-6 in the sandbox, which
+1
Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
Hi,
Following Maven release, I'd like to release (again) Maven Ant Tasks 2.0.8.
Problem with dependencies order has been fixed.
We solved 16 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11533styleName=Htmlversion=13618
The tasks can be
Brian E. Fox wrote:
It would be cool if you could try the new candidate on 2.0.x also. I had
trouble with it excluding tons of stuff when I did 2.0.8. I can try it
later today if you can't.
Built a 2.0.9 snapshot and try it out on a sample projects.
No problems encountered. So it does look
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 22:09:45 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time), Dan Fabulich [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that means that if we release maven-shade-plugin
alpha-14, even without fixing MSHADE-9, we can release Surefire 2.4, which
would make me very happy. :-)
Staged alpha-14 at
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:47:27 -0500, Daniel Kulp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 10 December 2007, Mauro Talevi wrote:
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 22:09:45 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time), Dan Fabulich
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that means that if we release maven-shade-plugin
alpha-14, even
Dan Fabulich wrote:
I just posted a long e-mail to surefire-dev about my findings re:
Surefire 2.3.1, 2.4 and Shade. I won't repost it here, but here's the
summary:
Summary: I think we're ready to release 2.3.1, because I can't reproduce
regression SUREFIRE-347, the only bug targeted for
olivier lamy wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to work on release for maven-invoker-plugin (and maven-invoker).
For this there are two things to release maven-invoker and
maven-invoker-plugin.
Does this needs two separate votes ?
I would say that one is enough if staged at the same time.
But first, is the
As version 1.0-alpha-14 has been staged for release, I'd like to call a
vote for its release and the move out of the sandbox and to version
1.0-beta-1-SNAPSHOT.
Staging area:
http://people.apache.org/~mauro/staging-repo/
Tag:
Dan Fabulich wrote:
Well - it was recently agreed that no vote was required for alphas.
That's surprising to me... I'd at least post to dev to make sure you
don't get a -1.
I distinctly remember that alphas should be released with more ease and
not the same formality.
But I decided to
Brian E. Fox wrote:
We had to revert back to the codehaus version to do 2.0.8 because
something in the apache version was definitely hosed.
Brian, did you make a note of what rev of mojo src you took to start the
repackaging and move?
It would seem that shade-maven-plugin-1.0-alpha-12 was
Dan Fabulich wrote:
Nope. SUREFIRE-347 is regression: plexus is not properly isolated
which is what I'd wish we'd fix before we release 2.3.1.
Rolled back commits for 2.3.1 staging release and added regression issue
to 2.3.1 target again. Any other issue that can be fixed by weekend
Dan Fabulich wrote:
-0. I can try to fix the three open 2.3.1 bugs sometime this weekend;
if you can afford to wait that long, I think that'd be preferable.
Dan,
firstly, nothing prevents us from releasing a 2.3.2 right after a 2.3.1.
Also, I had asked about anybody in the process of
Marat Radchenko wrote:
surefire-providers has corrupt dependency:
dependency
groupId${project.groupId}/groupId
artifactIdsurefire-api/artifactId
version2.3.1-SNAPSHOT/version
!-- commenting this due to MNG-2339
version${project.version}/version
Brett Porter wrote:
I was hesitant because at least one of them seemed to be a regression
over 2.3.
Anyway, my preference is to fix them first - but if someone is prepared
to do a release - go for it. There's lots of good stuff in there already.
I agree they should be fixed, but since no
+1
Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
Hi,
Following Maven release, I'd like to release Maven Ant Tasks 2.0.8.
We solved 17 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11533styleName=Htmlversion=13618
The tasks can be downloaded from:
Hi all,
I'd like to release Maven Surefire 2.3.1
Issues solved:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10541styleName=Htmlversion=13251
Staging repo:
http://people.apache.org/~mauro/staging-repo/
Tag:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/surefire/tags/surefire-2.3.1/
Vote
Hi,
as there have been a number of useful fixes since 2.3, and in line with
the release early-release often, I wanted to gauge opinions about the
opportunity to release 2.3.1 as currently in branch and postponing
outstanding 2.3.1 issues to a 2.3.2. Unless these outstanding issues
are being
Jason Dillon wrote:
I need this puppy applied and released for the upcoming GShell
1.0-alpha-1 release, which is a dependency of the upcoming G 2.1 release...
So if we can get this guy patched and published sooner rather than later
it would really help.
I know you are busy, but can you
Mauro Talevi wrote:
Jason Dillon wrote:
I need this puppy applied and released for the upcoming GShell
1.0-alpha-1 release, which is a dependency of the upcoming G 2.1
release...
So if we can get this guy patched and published sooner rather than
later it would really help.
I know you
+1
Daniel Kulp wrote:
I'd like to release version 1.0-beta-1 of the
maven-remote-resources-plugin. This resolves one critical bug reported
by Jason Dillon as well as fixes two other issues:
Release Notes - Maven 2.x Remote Resources Plugin - Version 1.0-beta-1
** Bug
*
Kev Jackson wrote:
Hi,
I've just been re-building my project with the new mvn 2.0.8 binary.
Here's my experience so far.
mvn clean install (jars) - works as 2.0.7
mvn clean package -Pprofile (war) - broken (re-tested on 2.0.7 and
works)
So something has changed in 2.0.8 that has affected
+1
Brian E. Fox wrote:
It's that time again, finally. The RC's have been floating for a few
weeks now and no new issues have surfaced. (the packaging issues with
the uber jar have been resolved since the last vote)
The release is staged at:
+1
Brett Porter wrote:
I'd like to call a vote for Nicolas de Loof as a committer, based
primarily on his work for Archiva, but also from being active in the
general Maven community for quite some time. He has been relentlessly
testing and identifying issues and providing patches recently.
olivier lamy wrote:
Hi,
I have an issue :
[WARNING] repository metadata for: 'artifact
org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-clean-plugin' could not be retrieved from
repository: rec-ap2-m2-plugins due to an error: Unsupported Protocol:
'http': Cannot find wagon which supports the requested protocol:
Hi all,
there is a duplication of test classes in Surefire ITs, which leads to
classpath conflicts when entire project is opened in an IDE.
How about we adopt the convention to avoid these conflicts. Either:
1. We use different test class names, eg TestSurefireN.java where N is
the test
aldana wrote:
hi,
i am living with severe bugs (see http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3252)
+ transitive resolving which not only comes from assembly plugin (as stated
in http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASSEMBLY-242) merely in maven core
transitive resolving too.
i would like to help to
+!
Brian E. Fox wrote:
I ran into an issue releasing 2.0.8 due to
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MRELEASE-296 and the addition of the
${mavenVersion} in the poms. This release is required for a release of
2.0.8.
Staging repo:
http://people.apache.org/~brianf/staging-repository/
+1
Brian E. Fox wrote:
+1
-Original Message-
From: Dennis Lundberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 5:00 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] release Maven / shared / plugin parent poms
+1 for all
Carlos Sanchez wrote:
Please vote for a release
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would also like to see an MJAR patch, especially if it includes
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MJAR-30
Robert Egan
William Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/10/2007
05:48:36 PM:
I don't want to nag, but could someone please apply the patches for
William Ferguson wrote:
I don't want to nag, but could someone please apply the patches for
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MRESOURCES-47
and
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MJAR-83
William
I've assigned them to me and I'll look at them over weekend.
Cheers
Hi All,
for anybody like me that really can't live without gmane-supported lists, I've had the the commits
list added to gmane group:
gmane.comp.apache.maven.scm
For those new to Gmane, it's a bi-directional mail-to-newsgroup service that allows to keeps on top
of mailing lists without
Wendy Smoak wrote:
On 10/4/07, Brian E. Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Wendy Smoak [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is now (in v9) some config in the plugin parent for staging
sites under maven-whatever-plugin-x.y-SNAPSHOT and I would like to get
that trend started for plugin docs.
Or at
Hi,
was thinking of creating a http://maven.apache.org/plugins/sandbox site to host the docs of the
plugins in the maven-sandbox?
I've not found any similar site - if so, what is it? If not, any objections to
the sandbox site?
We could also have it the other way around, ie
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 30 Sep 07, at 12:23 PM 30 Sep 07, Mauro Talevi wrote:
This is a comparison with SVN I've found on the Git site:
http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitSvnComparsion
But one of the main issues IMO is the integration with IDEs - it took
quite a long time for SVN to catch up
Jesse McConnell wrote:
I actually would prefer to have an increased focus on maven and maven2
integration. tbh there are many different continuous integration servers
and the ties with maven could be increased some more and leverage some
really nice features in maven.
I don't really think
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 30 Sep 07, at 12:41 AM 30 Sep 07, Stephane Nicoll wrote:
On 9/29/07, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why, and says who? These things are not cast in stone and we have the
ability to adapt the process to make it more productive.
[...]
I don't really care.
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
For anyone who wants to make changes to Maven but doesn't have access I
am going to setup a GIT repository to try and enable some distributed
development. After using GIT for about a week I'm having a hard time
using SVN but obviously we're not going to be switching
Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
Hi,
At the begin, Continuum was designed to support maven2 projects so we
thought it was good to put it under the maven umbrella.
But now it supports other project types (ANT, shell scripts) too so it
isn't centered on maven projects.
An other thing is that we have
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
