Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

So the plan is that we're going to do a release of spice-inject as fast as we can and then do the merge. So that will likely happen early next week. Until then folks can pick things up from Benjamin's branch: http://github.com/bentmann/maven-3 On Aug 19, 2010, at 4:20 AM, Tamás Cservenák wrote:

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

Cool! +1 for merges! Thanks, ~t~ 2010/8/18 Arnaud Héritier > Hi, > > I just rebuilt aether and maven3 and I have now : 14M/125M > We are really near of 9M/125M we have in beta2 > Perfect !!! > > Let's go for a merge in trunk ?? > > Arnaud > >

RE: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

>> >> There's been little to no feedback on beta-2 so I honestly don't think it >> matters. > feedback from Maven developers was good: since people complain only when it > does not work, I suppose no feedback = it works as good as for Maven > developers. > I agree, I consider also the no feedback

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

+1 On 18 August 2010 22:02, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > On Aug 18, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Arnaud Héritier wrote: > >> Hi, >> >>  I just rebuilt aether and maven3 and I have now : 14M/125M >>  We are really near of 9M/125M we have in beta2 >>  Perfect !!! >> >>  Let's go for a merge in trunk ?? >> > >

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

Le jeudi 19 août 2010, Jochen Wiedmann a écrit : > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > > I have only one concern with current maven-3 code in GitHub: it's not > > compatible with maven-site-plugin 3.0-beta-1 > > I think, that's a blocker for a new beta release, but not for a

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

Le mercredi 18 août 2010, Olivier Lamy a écrit : > 2010/8/18 Benjamin Bentmann : > > Olivier Lamy wrote: > >> So maybe having a compatibility even if we are in a beta release > >> process (benjamin ?) > > > > I don't feel motivated to maintain yet another layer of compat/bridge > > code for the sa

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > I have only one concern with current maven-3 code in GitHub: it's not > compatible with maven-site-plugin 3.0-beta-1 I think, that's a blocker for a new beta release, but not for a merge, isn't it? Jochen -- I Am What I Am And That's Al

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

2010/8/18 Benjamin Bentmann : > Olivier Lamy wrote: > >> So maybe having a compatibility even if we are in a beta release >> process (benjamin ?) > > I don't feel motivated to maintain yet another layer of compat/bridge code > for the sake of single beta plugin. ok np for me. > > > Benjamin > > -

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

Olivier Lamy wrote: So maybe having a compatibility even if we are in a beta release process (benjamin ?) I don't feel motivated to maintain yet another layer of compat/bridge code for the sake of single beta plugin. Benjamin ---

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

2010/8/18 Hervé BOUTEMY : > Le mercredi 18 août 2010, Olivier Lamy a écrit : >> Herve : regarding site plugin there is a patch here ( >> https://issues.sonatype.org/secure/attachment/23615/site-plugin-guice-eathe >> r.patch ). > yes, I know the patch (I studied it since our last discussion), but th

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

Le mercredi 18 août 2010, Olivier Lamy a écrit : > Herve : regarding site plugin there is a patch here ( > https://issues.sonatype.org/secure/attachment/23615/site-plugin-guice-eathe > r.patch ). yes, I know the patch (I studied it since our last discussion), but that doesn't make the future maven

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

Well.. can we get that patch applied and a new release of the maven 3 site plugin as well then. manfred PS: beta 2 works on all my projects.. > Hi, > Let's go for merge ! (with last spice version 1.3.3-SNAPSHOT or > released version to have a fix for SPICE-34). > > Herve : regarding site plugin

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

Hi, Let's go for merge ! (with last spice version 1.3.3-SNAPSHOT or released version to have a fix for SPICE-34). Herve : regarding site plugin there is a patch here ( https://issues.sonatype.org/secure/attachment/23615/site-plugin-guice-eather.patch ). 2010/8/18 Hervé BOUTEMY : > Le mercredi 18

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

Le mercredi 18 août 2010, Jason van Zyl a écrit : > On Aug 18, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Arnaud Héritier wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I just rebuilt aether and maven3 and I have now : 14M/125M > > We are really near of 9M/125M we have in beta2 > > Perfect !!! > > > > Let's go for a merge in trunk ?? > >

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

On Aug 18, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Arnaud Héritier wrote: > Hi, > > I just rebuilt aether and maven3 and I have now : 14M/125M > We are really near of 9M/125M we have in beta2 > Perfect !!! > > Let's go for a merge in trunk ?? > Yup, let's merge it all in and move forward. > Arnaud > > On Aug

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

On Aug 18, 2010, at 10:47 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > Le mercredi 18 août 2010, Jason van Zyl a écrit : >> On Aug 18, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: >>> Le mercredi 18 août 2010, Arnaud Héritier a écrit : It's always in GitHub or the merge started in trunk ? >>> >>> BTW, we have 3.

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

Le mercredi 18 août 2010, Jason van Zyl a écrit : > On Aug 18, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > > Le mercredi 18 août 2010, Arnaud Héritier a écrit : > >> It's always in GitHub or the merge started in trunk ? > > > > BTW, we have 3.0-beta-2 released without Guice nor Aether and GitHub wit

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > There's been little to no feedback on beta-2 so I honestly don't think it > matters. That's good news, isn't it? :-) -- I Am What I Am And That's All What I Yam (Popeye) ---

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

Hi, I just rebuilt aether and maven3 and I have now : 14M/125M We are really near of 9M/125M we have in beta2 Perfect !!! Let's go for a merge in trunk ?? Arnaud On Aug 7, 2010, at 2:37 PM, Arnaud Héritier wrote: > Results I had yesterday were : > > 3.0-benjamin (built yesterday) : 14

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

I'd love to offer more feedback on beta-2, but since it totally breaks our builds it's a non-starter. Without reworking our entire build setup ( which we're going to do anyway when we move to git ) M3 is effectively unusable for my main $work project. Which is a shame as all the new things look g

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

On Aug 18, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > Le mercredi 18 août 2010, Arnaud Héritier a écrit : >> It's always in GitHub or the merge started in trunk ? > BTW, we have 3.0-beta-2 released without Guice nor Aether and GitHub with > both > Guice and Aether. > What about merging Guice in s

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

Le mercredi 18 août 2010, Arnaud Héritier a écrit : > It's always in GitHub or the merge started in trunk ? BTW, we have 3.0-beta-2 released without Guice nor Aether and GitHub with both Guice and Aether. What about merging Guice in svn trunk, so we can test the 3 major steps: 3.0- beta-2, +Guice,

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

Arnaud Héritier wrote: It's always in GitHub or the merge started in trunk ? It's still in github. I'll try to build and test it this evening. Cool, thanks! Benjamin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apach

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

It's always in GitHub or the merge started in trunk ? I'll try to build and test it this evening. Thx On Aug 18, 2010, at 1:59 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote: > Arnaud Héritier wrote: > >> 3.0-benjamin (built yesterday) : 14M/2488M in 5:23.389s (It probably swapped >> a lot) > > Should be fixed

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

Arnaud Héritier wrote: 3.0-benjamin (built yesterday) : 14M/2488M in 5:23.389s (It probably swapped a lot) Should be fixed now, would be cool if you could double-check when time allows. Benjamin - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On Aug 8, 2010, at 11:34 PM, Brett Porter wrote: > > On 09/08/2010, at 12:39 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote: > >> Wouldn't this have the same problem with Apache based code? Doesn't the >> Apache Contributor agreements say you assigned copyright over to Apache? > > No, it doesn't. > It is a grant

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On 09/08/2010, at 12:39 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote: > Wouldn't this have the same problem with Apache based code? Doesn't the > Apache Contributor agreements say you assigned copyright over to Apache? No, it doesn't. - Brett -- Brett Porter br...@apache.org http://brettporter.wordpress.com/

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

Wouldn't this have the same problem with Apache based code? Doesn't the Apache Contributor agreements say you assigned copyright over to Apache? As you say - out of scope for the list. I'll take my answer off-list (mmm, sounds like a talk back radio caller!). -- Pull me down under... On Mon,

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On Aug 8, 2010, at 9:17 PM, Brett Porter wrote: > > On 09/08/2010, at 10:55 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > So I refute this with an act by Kristian today which was to sign the Sonatype CLA, sign up for the mailing list, asked for access to the wiki, already has access and has

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On 09/08/2010, at 10:55 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: >>> >>> So I refute this with an act by Kristian today which was to sign the >>> Sonatype CLA, sign up for the mailing list, asked for access to the wiki, >>> already has access and has been working with Benjamin. You'll also notice >>> he hasn

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On Aug 8, 2010, at 8:18 PM, Brett Porter wrote: > > On 07/08/2010, at 9:47 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > >> >> On Aug 7, 2010, at 1:44 AM, Brett Porter wrote: >> >>> Unavoidable. We're not going to bring in everyone other dependency and any developer worth their salt can figure

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On 07/08/2010, at 9:47 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > On Aug 7, 2010, at 1:44 AM, Brett Porter wrote: > >> >>> >>> Unavoidable. We're not going to bring in everyone other dependency and any >>> developer worth their salt can figure out how to pull in sources for >>> dependent projects. Aether

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

Results I had yesterday were : 3.0-benjamin (built yesterday) : 14M/2488M in 5:23.389s (It probably swapped a lot) 3.0-beta-2 (downloaded few minutes ago) : 9M/125M built in 23.723s 2.2.1 : 67M/136M built in 30s I only built one module : http://svn.exoplatform.org/projects/ecms/trunk/packaging/

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

On Aug 7, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Brett Porter wrote: > > On 07/08/2010, at 12:44 AM, Arnaud Héritier wrote: > >> The advantage is to do what I did this morning in few minutes. >> I found a OOME on Aether/Guice branch (reported to benjamin but not in MNG >> because it's not yet integrated) and then

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On Aug 7, 2010, at 1:44 AM, Brett Porter wrote: > >> >> Unavoidable. We're not going to bring in everyone other dependency and any >> developer worth their salt can figure out how to pull in sources for >> dependent projects. Aether is all JIRA and Confluence it's not a big leap >> for anyon

Re: guice & memory usage was: (3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x)

On 07/08/2010, at 12:44 AM, Arnaud Héritier wrote: > The advantage is to do what I did this morning in few minutes. > I found a OOME on Aether/Guice branch (reported to benjamin but not in MNG > because it's not yet integrated) and then I validated it wasn't here in > current trunk. > The prob

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On Aug 7, 2010, at 1:44 AM, Brett Porter wrote: > > > And doesn't that show that you could have done the same thing with Aether? :) > Could happen with anything, it's only dependent on what people do. >>> It is not an easily reversible step, and I want to ensure that anyone that >>> wants

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On 07/08/2010, at 1:23 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > Ideally there should be no API leakage from Aether. As part of the plugin API > we should provide access to whatever resolution functionality we feel is > necessary to expose and hide Aether. Initially a few attempts are likely > needed and

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Brett Porter wrote: > > On 07/08/2010, at 2:05 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > >> >> On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Brett Porter wrote: >> >>> >>> On 07/08/2010, at 1:22 AM, Brian Fox wrote: >>> I'm not so concerned about confusing users with a beta2 and then a >>

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On 07/08/2010, at 2:05 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Brett Porter wrote: > >> >> On 07/08/2010, at 1:22 AM, Brian Fox wrote: >> >>> I'm not so concerned about confusing users with a beta2 and then a >>> beta3, that can be mitigated easily in the announcement. More

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On Aug 6, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Ralph Goers wrote: > So even though I'm on vacation this week I took the time to get the code from > git and read the wiki. Now I am even more concerned, even though I have read > everyone's responses. > > Aether is NOT a replacement for the Wagon, from what I can

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: I had a look at the branch, and don't understand how the new maven-artifact- descriptor module is used to extend Aether in Maven 3. It enables Aether to extract dependency information out of POMs, similar in purpose to the MavenMetadataSource in 2.x - RepositorySystem

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

Le mardi 03 août 2010, Benjamin Bentmann a écrit : > Jason van Zyl wrote: > > At any rate we would like to merge these changes in and make plans to > > release 3.0-beta-2. > > Just in case, those changes currently live at > http://github.com/bentmann/maven-3/ I had a look at the branch, and don't

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: org.apache.maven.plugin.MavenPluginManager.getPluginDescriptor(Lorg/apache/maven/model/Plugin;Lorg/apache/maven/artifact/repository/RepositoryRequest;)Lorg/apache/maven/plugin/descriptor/PluginDescriptor; I adjusted the 3.x API, so just sync up

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

Hi, I have fixed it locally. You can have a look at the patch for site plugin attached here : https://issues.sonatype.org/browse/SPICE-33. But you must have a look too at SPICE-33 and use last SNAPSHOT of guice/plexus stuff. 2010/8/6 Hervé BOUTEMY : > Le vendredi 06 août 2010, Jason van Zyl a

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

So even though I'm on vacation this week I took the time to get the code from git and read the wiki. Now I am even more concerned, even though I have read everyone's responses. Aether is NOT a replacement for the Wagon, from what I can tell it replaces all the artifact resolution handling. Thi

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

Le vendredi 06 août 2010, Jason van Zyl a écrit : > Why don't you just try the site plugin with the branch with Aether and > Guice and make sure it works? I built Benjamin's branch for myself and tried "mvn -Prun-its install" on maven-site-plugin 3.0-beta-1-SNAPSHOT branch and got failure for eve

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

Point of vue of a Maven user : We need to have a new beta release, ie beta-2 since the beta-1 is now 3/4 months old and Maven 2.2.1 is one year old. This will help us show our co-workers and may be more important, our IT managers, that Maven 3.0 progress. They didn't follow maven-dev list and onl

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

I think it would be helpful if two JIRA tickets were created for the separate integrations. This way, people can track and report back on any issues they find -- plus know what release it planned for. I, being a bystander who watches the development, I did not know these two things were planned. P

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Brett Porter wrote: > > On 07/08/2010, at 1:22 AM, Brian Fox wrote: > >> I'm not so concerned about confusing users with a beta2 and then a >> beta3, that can be mitigated easily in the announcement. More releases >> won't hurt anyone. >> >> Let those working on it

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On 07/08/2010, at 1:22 AM, Brian Fox wrote: > I'm not so concerned about confusing users with a beta2 and then a > beta3, that can be mitigated easily in the announcement. More releases > won't hurt anyone. > > Let those working on it decide what to do and when presented with a > vote, I'll test

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Brian Fox wrote: > I'm not so concerned about confusing users with a beta2 and then a > beta3, that can be mitigated easily in the announcement. More releases > won't hurt anyone. > If we were deciding to leave Guice/Aether to Maven 3.1 then my opinion would be let

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

+1 Vincent Le 2010-08-05 à 20:04, Arnaud Héritier a écrit : Ok, Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more than I'm doing :-) ) Could we have a consensus if we : - release now the trunk as a beta 2 without Guice and Aether. With that we'll have a solid bas

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

I'm not so concerned about confusing users with a beta2 and then a beta3, that can be mitigated easily in the announcement. More releases won't hurt anyone. Let those working on it decide what to do and when presented with a vote, I'll test, verify and vote accordingly, regardless of if it's beta

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

Yes but the main issue is that nobody will test aether/guice before the release of the beta (and more before a real GA). We can suppose we'll find some others issues like the OOEM I had and thus this beta will be useless (for me it is in the current state => 14M/2488M & 5:23.389s vs 9M/125M &

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

You could also cut beta-2 today and just not release it. Move on to beta-3 immediately to merge. If the merge turns out to be a disaster, at least you have a branch and an artifact to deploy as a backup plan. Regardless, I don't expect anything to go tragically wrong. >From my perspective of a Rel

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

I think user issues can be addressed with some naming magic. Instead of 3.0-beta2 and 3.0-beta3, go with 3.0-beta2, and 3.0-beta2a It's still "forward", and it implies that they're similar or related versions, and the notes/announce on it can be clear, but it won't carry the implication th

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Arnaud Héritier wrote: > The advantage is to do what I did this morning in few minutes. > I found a OOME on Aether/Guice branch (reported to benjamin but not in MNG > because it's not yet integrated) and then I validated it wasn't here in > current trunk. > The pro

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

The advantage is to do what I did this morning in few minutes. I found a OOME on Aether/Guice branch (reported to benjamin but not in MNG because it's not yet integrated) and then I validated it wasn't here in current trunk. The problem is that I had to rebuild both of them hat users won't do. W

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

Then we wait until we fix it. What difference does a week make at this point. Honestly? On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > Given that Arnaud found a bad memory leak in the Aether/Guice version I > think it would be good to get beta-2 out now without Aether/Guice > > Then fix

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:14 AM, John Casey wrote: > There is one huge advantage to two releases, however: > > You know that if the bug exists in both places, you don't have to dig through > this huge pile of code that is the new container. That's a large set of > assumptions you don't have to che

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

Given that Arnaud found a bad memory leak in the Aether/Guice version I think it would be good to get beta-2 out now without Aether/Guice Then fix the leak and roll beta-3 as soon as the leak is fixed -Stephen On 6 August 2010 15:10, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Brian

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

+1 and if you're so concerned about the official beta2/beta3 thing you can just build an official internal release that can be provided on demand to reproduce the problem. I don't see what the problem could be if we explain to the community what we're trying to achieve. It is in their best interest

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

There is one huge advantage to two releases, however: You know that if the bug exists in both places, you don't have to dig through this huge pile of code that is the new container. That's a large set of assumptions you don't have to check. On 8/6/10 10:10 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: On Aug 6,

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Brian Fox wrote: > 2010/8/5 Arnaud Héritier : >> Ok, >> >> Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more than I'm >> doing :-) ) >> >> Could we have a consensus if we : >> - release now the trunk as a beta 2 without Guice and Aether. With th

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

+1 Emmanuel 2010/8/6 Arnaud Héritier > Ok, > > Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more than > I'm doing :-) ) > > Could we have a consensus if we : > - release now the trunk as a beta 2 without Guice and Aether. With that > we'll have a solid base to compare future

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

2010/8/5 Arnaud Héritier : > Ok, > >  Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more than I'm > doing :-) ) > >  Could we have a consensus if we : >  - release now the trunk as a beta 2 without Guice and Aether. With that > we'll have a solid base to compare future changes wit

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

+1 S. --- [image: Linkedin] [image: Twitter] 2010/8/6 Arnaud Héritier > Ok, > > Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more than > I'm doing :-) ) > > Could we have a consensus if we : > - release now th

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

+1

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

+1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

+1 On 8/5/10 8:04 PM, Arnaud Héritier wrote: Ok, Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more than I'm doing :-) ) Could we have a consensus if we : - release now the trunk as a beta 2 without Guice and Aether. With that we'll have a solid base to compare futur

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

+1 Regards, Hervé Le vendredi 06 août 2010, Arnaud Héritier a écrit : > Ok, > > Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more than > I'm doing :-) ) > > Could we have a consensus if we : > - release now the trunk as a beta 2 without Guice and Aether. With that > we'l

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

Arnaud, I think your plan is sensible. I agree with what you and Dennis have said. It allows the Maven community to move forward but also doesn't stop development of the integration. Paul 2010/8/5 Arnaud Héritier > Ok, > > Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more tha

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

yes the goal will be to do more communications on beta-3 than beta-2 to let a maximum number of users trying it. If they have any issues due to Ather or Guice we'll be able to ask them to come back to beta 2 the time we fix issues and deploy the beta-4 On Aug 6, 2010, at 2:09 AM, Mark Derricutt

Re: 3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

+1 on releasing beta-2 followed -very quickly- with beta-3 inc guice/aether (like days apart). Tho I wonder if it might confuse people - but then, if you're playing with beta's you're probably following these threads anyway ). Mark -- Pull me down under... 2010/8/6 Arnaud Héritier > WDYT

3.0 beta 2/3/4 roadmap was Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

Ok, Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more than I'm doing :-) ) Could we have a consensus if we : - release now the trunk as a beta 2 without Guice and Aether. With that we'll have a solid base to compare future changes with. We know it is stable and it is bet

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

> > The first thing I would like to happen is that we release 3.0-beta-2 > *without* merging the proposed code. There are two reasons for this. Lets stage them both, I don't see any harm in having them back to back, it certainly could help isolate any regressions.

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

Hi all Some very important questions have been asked regarding Jason's proposal. I usually let my first impressions sink in a bit before I reply. That often help to make my comments more about the facts and less about the feelings, and we've seen a lot of feelings in this thread. The first thing

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

Having worked with Aether yesterday in some test code, and after sleeping on it last night, I'll withdraw my objections for now. This looks like a good way forward in terms of code. I'm still concerned about volatility in terms of writing plugins that need to resolve X or Y artifact at runtime

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

A thing I forgot to add yesterday : For me Maven is a success because of its fundamentals (rules/guidelines) which allowed to created a large large variety of services with plugins. The value of Maven is many many more in its plugins than in its core (I don't want to reduce the work done on it

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

OK, I am going to round off my view on the topic. Guice integration: +1 Aether integration: +0.99 _for now_... let's suck it and see... if it works well and the interaction between the two code bases works well, then all is good. There is a generic issue when we have volunteers and paid for

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

Hi there, As for Guice, I think that what JVZ said does stands: a very few people does understand how big and complex that work was (and is, since it is ongoing). Stuart did a real magic, with just a "drop in" replacement for Plexus-components backed by Guice. But don't stop there. With his founda

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

Mark Derricutt wrote: Can the guice stuff be merged in cleanly independent of aether? Yes, see patch at http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-4749. There are no interdependencies between Aether and the Plexus-Guice-Bridge. The Git branch I mentioned earlier aggregates them for the sole purpos

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

To my point earlier, perhaps beta-2 could be tagged/cut/released before the merges take place. Once the merges take place, you could spin beta-3 with these new additions rather quickly. I would consider that to be good plan -- at one time, Jason did posted that wanted betas to be released every 2 w

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

Out of curiository - are the guice/aether changes available in separate branches at all? Can the guice stuff be merged in cleanly independent of aether? If so - I'd like to see the guice code merged in, and deal with aether as a separate thing. -- Pull me down under... On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 a

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

Hi, Here is my position about these proposals. Guice : I understand it will replace the IOC part of plexus. More important changes in Maven will be done in Maven (>3.0) to fully use the JSR and Guice itself. For now it is just a technical switch between IOC containers and we need more real

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

I want it to be clear that the _only_ thing I asked for was that the Aether API/SPI _specification_ be hosted in a neutral location where Maven committers can contribute to the design. Let me emphasize that: API/SPI only, and in a neutral location. The Maven project is not what I'd call "neutr

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On Aug 4, 2010, at 11:54 AM, John Casey wrote: >>> >>> >>> Having a stable set of specifications define their interaction with Maven >>> would make plugin development and embedding MUCH better. In fact, I think >>> establishing this practice might be the single best contribution we can >>> m

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On 8/4/10 11:03 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: On Aug 4, 2010, at 10:35 AM, John Casey wrote: On 8/3/10 2:21 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: Hi, We have two major pieces that we, Sonatype, would like to merge into Maven 3.x trunk. The first are the Guice changes that we've been talking about for a whil

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On Aug 4, 2010, at 7:04 AM, Brian Fox wrote: >> I find your pronouncement that it won't be here very troubling since you >> only have a single vote just as every other committer does. >> > > Knowing you in person, I'll take the above with a grain of salt that > maybe it's not exactly what you

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

I'll try and sum up some things I expressed on IRC, in response to Brian's message. I'll be clear upfront that we have no right to tell Sonatype where they host code they wrote, so let's focus on the impact for Maven itself. Equally so, no matter how generous they are with a donation: solutions

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On Aug 4, 2010, at 10:35 AM, John Casey wrote: > On 8/3/10 2:21 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We have two major pieces that we, Sonatype, would like to merge into Maven >> 3.x trunk. >> >> The first are the Guice changes that we've been talking about for a while, >> and the second is

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

Could it be supported by a JSR ? Not a lightweight process, even considering JSR-330 was out after 6 month, but the most agnostic way to group community efforts. Aether could then be proposed as RI 2010/8/4 John Casey > On 8/4/10 10:39 AM, nicolas de loof wrote: > >> Ivy Guys could be intereste

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

2010/8/4 Stephen Connolly : > Alternatively, host the Aether API in one place (hey why not codehaus), the > Maven Repo impl in Apache and the p2 repo impl in Eclipse ;-) Very good idea - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@m

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On 8/4/10 10:39 AM, nicolas de loof wrote: Ivy Guys could be interested in such a "neutral" repository API, as they also support both m2 and proprietary repo format. Is Ivy even active still? I see Eclipse p2 as a better target for interoperability, but that's beside the point. We're talkin

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

Ivy Guys could be interested in such a "neutral" repository API, as they also support both m2 and proprietary repo format. 2010/8/4 John Casey > On 8/3/10 2:21 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> We have two major pieces that we, Sonatype, would like to merge into Maven >> 3.x trunk. >> >> T

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On 8/3/10 2:21 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: Hi, We have two major pieces that we, Sonatype, would like to merge into Maven 3.x trunk. The first are the Guice changes that we've been talking about for a while, and the second is the introduction of Aether which is our second attempt at a stand-alo

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

> I find your pronouncement that it won't be here very troubling since you only > have a single vote just as every other committer does. > Knowing you in person, I'll take the above with a grain of salt that maybe it's not exactly what you meant. However my first reading of this was alarming. Pe

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

If the future of the repository is to be akin to p2 then I think living at eclipse is the best place for it. If it lives at eclipse then it has all IP concerned managed out of the gates and companies are very comfortable with eclipse IP practices. Living at eclipse it will likely be osgified out o

Re: Merging in our Aether and Guice changes to Maven 3.x

On 4 August 2010 13:55, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > On Aug 4, 2010, at 8:37 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > > > My experience is that a high barrier to committ access actually makes > life > > harder for committers. I have commit access to Maven but not to > plexus > > sometimes when working on M

  1   2   >