On 20/06/2007, at 3:27 AM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
+1
How can I not vote +1? After all, according to the META-INF/
MANIFEST.MF in the maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar I built it.
Niggle: It still feels wrong to have the maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar
have a LICENSE.txt in it's root that says it's a GP
Good, it's looking like this puppy will go out tomorrow morning.
On 17 Jun 07, at 10:47 AM 17 Jun 07, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
The release notes are here:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
projectId=10500&styleName=Html&version=13138
The tag is here:
http://svn.apache.org/
+1 fixes my issues
On 17 Jun 2007, at 18:47, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
The release notes are here:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
projectId=10500&styleName=Html&version=13138
The tag is here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/components/tags/maven-2.0.7/
Staging rep
+1 tested ok on my builds.
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2007 11:47 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: [VOTE] Release Maven 2.0.7 (take 2)
Hi,
The release notes are here:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
pro
+1 (non-binding)
successful on Mac for large reactor build of 20+ subprojects, plus a
bunch of plugin projects.
On Jun 19, 2007, at 5:33 PM, Jesse McConnell wrote:
+1
On 6/19/07, Arnaud HERITIER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
Arnaud
On 19/06/07, Joakim Erdfelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
On 6/19/07, Arnaud HERITIER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
Arnaud
On 19/06/07, Joakim Erdfelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> How can I not vote +1? After all, according to the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
> in the maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar I built it.
>
> Niggle: It still feels wrong to have
+1
Arnaud
On 19/06/07, Joakim Erdfelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
How can I not vote +1? After all, according to the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
in the maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar I built it.
Niggle: It still feels wrong to have the maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar have
a LICENSE.txt in it's root that sa
+1
How can I not vote +1? After all, according to the META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
in the maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar I built it.
Niggle: It still feels wrong to have the maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar have
a LICENSE.txt in it's root that says it's a GPL'd application.
- Joakim
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
+1 (Non-binding) Used it today in various projects without problems.
--
"Besides, manipulating elections is under penalty of law, resulting in
a preventative effect against manipulating elections.
The german government justifying the use of electronic voting machines
and obviously believing tha
On 18 Jun 07, at 12:26 AM 18 Jun 07, Julien HENRY wrote:
Hi,
Was something done concerning my problem with error
not stopping build during release?
I cannot reproduce the problem. Provide a sample project and raise a
JIRA issue.
++
Julien
--- Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit
+1, works
On 6/17/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
The release notes are here:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
projectId=10500&styleName=Html&version=13138
The tag is here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/components/tags/maven-2.0.7/
Staging reposito
Hi,
Was something done concerning my problem with error
not stopping build during release?
++
Julien
--- Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> The release notes are here:
>
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
> projectId=10500&styleName=Html&version=13138
>
+1
Thanks,
Stéphane
On 6/17/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
The release notes are here:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
projectId=10500&styleName=Html&version=13138
The tag is here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/components/tags/maven-2.0.7/
Stagin
On 17 Jun 07, at 10:43 PM 17 Jun 07, Brett Porter wrote:
+1
A niggle I would like to see corrected: the source distributions
from the assembly (in the repository), and the one in the second
directory are different. The one in the assembly looks wrong (still
refers to 2.0.7-SNAPSHOT). May
+1
A niggle I would like to see corrected: the source distributions from
the assembly (in the repository), and the one in the second directory
are different. The one in the assembly looks wrong (still refers to
2.0.7-SNAPSHOT). Maybe they should be removed from the staging repo
this time
+1
still works
On 6/17/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
The release notes are here:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
projectId=10500&styleName=Html&version=13138
The tag is here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/components/tags/maven-2.0.7/
Staging re
Jason van Zyl wrote on Friday, June 15, 2007 4:28 PM:
> On 15 Jun 07, at 7:22 AM 15 Jun 07, Jörg Schaible wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I have a weird problem with this release. In a multi-project setup
>> is one of my submodules failing, because the surefire plugin is
>> missing classes in the class
On 15 Jun 07, at 7:22 AM 15 Jun 07, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Folks,
I have a weird problem with this release. In a multi-project setup
is one of my submodules failing, because the surefire plugin is
missing classes in the class path when "install" is invoked from
above. "install" works fine
Folks,
I have a weird problem with this release. In a multi-project setup is one of my
submodules failing, because the surefire plugin is missing classes in the class
path when "install" is invoked from above. "install" works fine from the sub
project level though. Now the really weirtd part: I
Yup, I'm certainly not going to complain about a 5 day vote to cover
the weekend.
Cheers,
Brett
On 16/06/2007, at 12:05 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 15 Jun 07, at 6:52 AM 15 Jun 07, Brett Porter wrote:
On 15/06/2007, at 11:27 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 15 Jun 07, at 6:09 AM 15 Jun 07,
This vote is cancelled and will be re-instated on Monday. I will re-
stage as fast as I can so that anyone who wants to check can. But
doing a vote over the weekend has traditionally not yielded a decent
enough set of people trying things so we'll shoot for next Wednesday.
Schedule updated i
se +1.
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 8:53 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 2.0.7
On 15 Jun 07, at 5:36 AM 15 Jun 07, Brian E. Fox wrote:
Where are we on the 2.0.7 vote? It seems like there are some i
On 15/06/2007, at 11:27 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 15 Jun 07, at 6:09 AM 15 Jun 07, Brett Porter wrote:
Can we restart the vote once this is sorted out? I have no idea
which svn rev we are voting on any more,
We're voting on the tag used to build the releases.
Which has been changed si
On 15 Jun 07, at 6:52 AM 15 Jun 07, Brett Porter wrote:
On 15/06/2007, at 11:27 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 15 Jun 07, at 6:09 AM 15 Jun 07, Brett Porter wrote:
Can we restart the vote once this is sorted out? I have no idea
which svn rev we are voting on any more,
We're voting on the
On 15/06/2007, at 11:27 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 15 Jun 07, at 6:09 AM 15 Jun 07, Brett Porter wrote:
Can we restart the vote once this is sorted out? I have no idea
which svn rev we are voting on any more,
We're voting on the tag used to build the releases.
Which has been changed si
In that case +1.
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 8:53 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 2.0.7
On 15 Jun 07, at 5:36 AM 15 Jun 07, Brian E. Fox wrote:
Where are we on the 2.0.7 vote? It seems like there are some i
Thanks, that script does sort it for me :)
Andy
On 15 Jun 2007, at 13:55, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 15 Jun 07, at 4:58 AM 15 Jun 07, Andrew Williams wrote:
Am I the only one getting a test failure on IT0002 with the 2.0.7
bundle?
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: Expected file was not
Brett
On 15/06/2007, at 10:56 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote:
Ok, the last one I tested was Wed night. In that case +1.
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 8:53 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 2.0.7
On 15 J
: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 8:53 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 2.0.7
On 15 Jun 07, at 5:36 AM 15 Jun 07, Brian E. Fox wrote:
Where are we on the 2.0.7 vote? It seems like there are some issues
requiring a new RC such as
Ok, the last one I tested was Wed night. In that case +1.
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 8:53 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 2.0.7
On 15 Jun 07, at 5:36 AM 15 Jun 07, Brian E. Fox wrote
On 15 Jun 07, at 4:58 AM 15 Jun 07, Andrew Williams wrote:
Am I the only one getting a test failure on IT0002 with the 2.0.7
bundle?
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: Expected file was not found: /
Users/aje/.m2/repository/org/apache/maven/its/maven-core-it-support/
1.0/maven-core-it-s
D]
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 8:01 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 2.0.7
On 15/06/07, Andrew Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am I the only one getting a test failure on IT0002 with the 2.0.7
bundle?
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: Expected file was n
AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 2.0.7
On 15/06/07, Andrew Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am I the only one getting a test failure on IT0002 with the 2.0.7
> bundle?
>
> junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: Expected file was not found: /
>
On 15/06/07, Andrew Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am I the only one getting a test failure on IT0002 with the 2.0.7
bundle?
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: Expected file was not found: /
Users/aje/.m2/repository/org/apache/maven/its/maven-core-it-support/
1.0/maven-core-it-support-1.
Am I the only one getting a test failure on IT0002 with the 2.0.7
bundle?
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: Expected file was not found: /
Users/aje/.m2/repository/org/apache/maven/its/maven-core-it-support/
1.0/maven-core-it-support-1.0.jar
(yes, I did install the maven-core-it-support
+1
Vincent
2007/6/13, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi,
The release notes are here:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
projectId=10500&styleName=Html&version=13138
The tag is here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/components/tags/maven-2.0.7/
Staging repository:
h
Jason van Zyl ha scritto:
> On 14 Jun 07, at 2:32 PM 14 Jun 07, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>>
>> I have some statistic of downloads for Apache JAMES Server (email
>> server).
>>
>> We distribute both binary and source distributions:
>> [...]
>
> Do you actually deploy with Maven? I imagine you have th
On 15/06/2007, at 12:03 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 14 Jun 07, at 5:58 AM 14 Jun 07, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
-1 (conditional)
evoking the spirit of dkulp ...
1) The embedded maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar has bad LICENSE.txt and
NOTICE.txt files.
1a) The LICENSE.txt at the root of the maven-cor
All done for 2.0.8-SNAPSHOT and 2.1-SNAPSHOT.
- Brett
On 15/06/2007, at 12:10 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 15/06/2007, at 11:45 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I'll try adding it to the POM under a release profile.
If you're going to add it to the POM make sure you:
- export the tag
- take the
On 15/06/2007, at 11:45 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I'll try adding it to the POM under a release profile.
If you're going to add it to the POM make sure you:
- export the tag
- take the whole thing in it's entirety so someone could actually
build the release
- use the same licenses
- int
On 14 Jun 07, at 5:39 PM 14 Jun 07, Brett Porter wrote:
this is open source. cutting source releases means that the
source for a
release will always be available.
I agree, we should definitely be producing a source tarball that is
signed and voted on. I fully admit to being slack in the f
On 14 Jun 07, at 2:32 PM 14 Jun 07, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Jason van Zyl ha scritto:
On 14 Jun 07, at 10:36 AM 14 Jun 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
I'm not talking about what our users do, I'm talking about what the
ASF policy seems to be
Ask five people and you'll get five different answers
this is open source. cutting source releases means that the source
for a
release will always be available.
I agree, we should definitely be producing a source tarball that is
signed and voted on. I fully admit to being slack in the first few
releases, but we had them for 2.0.3, 2.0.4 and 2
Jason van Zyl ha scritto:
>
> On 14 Jun 07, at 10:36 AM 14 Jun 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>
>> I'm not talking about what our users do, I'm talking about what the
>> ASF policy seems to be
>>
>
> Ask five people and you'll get five different answers.
>
> Bottom line is who cares, I'll keep adapt
Jason van Zyl ha scritto:
>
> On 14 Jun 07, at 10:36 AM 14 Jun 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>
>> I'm not talking about what our users do, I'm talking about what the
>> ASF policy seems to be
>>
>
> Ask five people and you'll get five different answers.
>
> Bottom line is who cares, I'll keep adapt
On 14 Jun 07, at 10:34 AM 14 Jun 07, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 14 Jun 07, at 9:39 AM 14 Jun 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> that's what I understood too, source release is mandatory and
> binary optional
>
This is a throwback to HTTPD
On 14 Jun 07, at 10:36 AM 14 Jun 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
I'm not talking about what our users do, I'm talking about what the
ASF policy seems to be
Ask five people and you'll get five different answers.
Bottom line is who cares, I'll keep adapting to what people think is
necessary and w
Jason van Zyl ha scritto:
>
> On 14 Jun 07, at 9:34 AM 14 Jun 07, Wendy Smoak wrote:
>
>> On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Took me a few minutes so it doesn't hurt, I just exported the tag,
>>> zipped it up, signed, and checksummed it:
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~
Jason van Zyl ha scritto:
>
> On 14 Jun 07, at 9:37 AM 14 Jun 07, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
>> Wendy Smoak ha scritto:
>>> On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Took me a few minutes so it doesn't hurt, I just exported the tag,
zipped it up, signed, and checksummed it:
I'm not talking about what our users do, I'm talking about what the
ASF policy seems to be
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 14 Jun 07, at 9:39 AM 14 Jun 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> that's what I understood too, source release is mandatory and
> binary optional
>
This is
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 14 Jun 07, at 9:39 AM 14 Jun 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> that's what I understood too, source release is mandatory and
> binary optional
>
This is a throwback to HTTPD where a source distribution made more
sense because of platform issue
On 14 Jun 07, at 9:39 AM 14 Jun 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
that's what I understood too, source release is mandatory and
binary optional
This is a throwback to HTTPD where a source distribution made more
sense because of platform issues. I'm willing to bet 99.% of
users don't build
On 14 Jun 07, at 9:34 AM 14 Jun 07, Wendy Smoak wrote:
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Took me a few minutes so it doesn't hurt, I just exported the tag,
zipped it up, signed, and checksummed it:
http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/maven-2.0.7/
Thanks. Almost there... i
On 14 Jun 07, at 9:37 AM 14 Jun 07, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Wendy Smoak ha scritto:
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Took me a few minutes so it doesn't hurt, I just exported the tag,
zipped it up, signed, and checksummed it:
http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/maven-2.0.7/
Wendy Smoak ha scritto:
> On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Took me a few minutes so it doesn't hurt, I just exported the tag,
>> zipped it up, signed, and checksummed it:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/maven-2.0.7/
>
> Thanks. Almost there... it needs LICENSE an
that's what I understood too, source release is mandatory and binary optional
On 6/14/07, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We've never had one, but I can certainly make one by exporting the
> tag and zipping it up. All the source arch
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Took me a few minutes so it doesn't hurt, I just exported the tag,
zipped it up, signed, and checksummed it:
http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/maven-2.0.7/
Thanks. Almost there... it needs LICENSE and NOTICE added. :)
I have a note to ad
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We've never had one, but I can certainly make one by exporting the
tag and zipping it up. All the source archives to date are simply the
source as record, they don't include anything in there to build them.
I don't think this is useful at all
Jason van Zyl ha scritto:
>
> On 14 Jun 07, at 8:31 AM 14 Jun 07, Brian E. Fox wrote:
>
>> I'm no lawyer, but since the tag is publicly available from SVN, why
>> wouldn't that be sufficient? It would be convenient for some I suppose,
>> but I doubt it's a requirement.
>
> Took me a few minutes
urt, I just exported the tag,
zipped it up, signed, and checksummed it:
http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/maven-2.0.7/
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:19 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 2.0.
te the work the
license is invalid.
Stefano
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:19 AM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 2.0.7
>
>
> On 14 Jun 07, at 7:14 AM 14 Jun 07,
19 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 2.0.7
On 14 Jun 07, at 7:14 AM 14 Jun 07, Wendy Smoak wrote:
> On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> All the new stuff is here:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/
>
> I
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 14 Jun 07, at 7:14 AM 14 Jun 07, Wendy Smoak wrote:
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All the new stuff is here:
http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/
Is there a buildable-from-source distribution?
I only see -bin here: http://people.apache.org/~jv
On 14 Jun 07, at 5:58 AM 14 Jun 07, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
-1 (conditional)
evoking the spirit of dkulp ...
1) The embedded maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar has bad LICENSE.txt and
NOTICE.txt files.
1a) The LICENSE.txt at the root of the maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar is
for JSch's LGPL license. not A
On 14 Jun 07, at 7:14 AM 14 Jun 07, Wendy Smoak wrote:
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All the new stuff is here:
http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/
Is there a buildable-from-source distribution?
I only see -bin here: http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/maven-2.0.7/
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All the new stuff is here:
http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/
Is there a buildable-from-source distribution?
I only see -bin here: http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/maven-2.0.7/
--
Wendy
--
On 14 Jun 07, at 5:58 AM 14 Jun 07, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
-1 (conditional)
evoking the spirit of dkulp ...
1) The embedded maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar has bad LICENSE.txt and
NOTICE.txt files.
1a) The LICENSE.txt at the root of the maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar is
for JSch's LGPL license. not A
For what it's worth, the original staged version seems ok on all my
builds.
-Original Message-
From: Max Bowsher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:22 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 2.0.7
Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
> -1 (con
Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
> -1 (conditional)
>
> evoking the spirit of dkulp ...
>
> 1) The embedded maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar has bad LICENSE.txt and
> NOTICE.txt files.
> 1a) The LICENSE.txt at the root of the maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar is for
> JSch's LGPL license. not ASL.
> 1b) There is no NOTICE
-1 (conditional)
evoking the spirit of dkulp ...
1) The embedded maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar has bad LICENSE.txt and
NOTICE.txt files.
1a) The LICENSE.txt at the root of the maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar is for
JSch's LGPL license. not ASL.
1b) There is no NOTICE.txt file at the root.
1c) There is
I tried with 2.0-beta-4 and 2.0-beta-6. Same issue.
--- Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>
> On 14 Jun 07, at 12:48 AM 14 Jun 07, Julien HENRY
> wrote:
>
> > IMHO it should be fixed before 2.0.7. If not, the
> > release process will be broken (the scm tag will
> be
> > done even if s
+1, tested on a project with 15 modules.
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
+1, tested on my m2 projects
Arnaud
On 13/06/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
The release notes are here:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
projectId=10500&styleName=Html&version=13138
The tag
Do we need to reopen an issue that this originally fixed?
I'll close 3055 after testing.
- Brett
On 14/06/2007, at 5:54 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
All fixed. Running a battery of checks now but the change is very
small and I know it has been working in the form it is now because
I only chang
On 14 Jun 07, at 12:48 AM 14 Jun 07, Julien HENRY wrote:
IMHO it should be fixed before 2.0.7. If not, the
release process will be broken (the scm tag will be
done even if something goes wrong during the build).
You tried with these:
http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/maven-2.0.7/
And you'v
All fixed. Running a battery of checks now but the change is very
small and I know it has been working in the form it is now because I
only changed it about 8 days ago when trying to get rid of a class of
problems as the one found in the jbi-components build. I don't think
this needs revote
IMHO it should be fixed before 2.0.7. If not, the
release process will be broken (the scm tag will be
done even if something goes wrong during the build).
--- Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> It's possibly a problem in the windows batch file in
> 2.0.7 - I think
> it was changed and
On 13 Jun 07, at 11:20 PM 13 Jun 07, Brett Porter wrote:
regrettably -1:
- http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/maven-2.0.7-staging-repository/
maven-2.0.7/org/apache/maven/maven/2.0.7/maven-2.0.7.pom contains
2.0.7-SNAPSHOT as the maven version and that will result in
dependencies from the
On 13 Jun 07, at 11:20 PM 13 Jun 07, Brett Porter wrote:
regrettably -1:
- http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/maven-2.0.7-staging-repository/
maven-2.0.7/org/apache/maven/maven/2.0.7/maven-2.0.7.pom contains
2.0.7-SNAPSHOT as the maven version and that will result in
dependencies from the
regrettably -1:
- http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/maven-2.0.7-staging-repository/
maven-2.0.7/org/apache/maven/maven/2.0.7/maven-2.0.7.pom contains
2.0.7-SNAPSHOT as the maven version and that will result in
dependencies from the repository will cause failures.
- I get loader constraints
+1, works fine for me though I wasn't able to test deploying
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
+1, tested on my m2 projects
Arnaud
On 13/06/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
The release notes are here:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
projectId=10500&styleName=Html&ver
Brett Porter wrote:
I've successfully done deployments with 2.0.6 elsewhere, but I get the
same problem on utils. I get different failures with dav in earlier
versions so I think this is just a problem deploying p-utils and the
container since they are in use and not properly separated.
I
+1, tested on my m2 projects
Arnaud
On 13/06/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
The release notes are here:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
projectId=10500&styleName=Html&version=13138
The tag is here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/components/tags/ma
On 14/06/2007, at 2:34 AM, Kenney Westerhof wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
I don't really grok why this set of problems have come up now, but
I don't agree with requiring a surefire plugin upgrade to upgrade
to 2.0.7. We've been advocating pinning the version of plugins -
that would be nastin
I've successfully done deployments with 2.0.6 elsewhere, but I get
the same problem on utils. I get different failures with dav in
earlier versions so I think this is just a problem deploying p-utils
and the container since they are in use and not properly separated.
- Brett
On 14/06/2007,
Brett Porter wrote:
I don't really grok why this set of problems have come up now, but I
don't agree with requiring a surefire plugin upgrade to upgrade to
2.0.7. We've been advocating pinning the version of plugins - that
would be nastiness to have to go and change them.
If 2.1.3 or 2.2 or 2
Jason van Zyl wrote:
tentative -1 for releasing as is:
I found a serious bug in maven 2.0.6 and 2.0.7 (2.0.5 works fine):
mvn clean deploy on plexus-utils fails (stacktrace and output below) due
to a NoClassDefFound
on IOUtil in plexus-utils.
I'm using released versions of wagon and the depl
It's possibly a problem in the windows batch file in 2.0.7 - I think
it was changed and it may no longer be correctly propogating the
error code.
- Brett
On 14/06/2007, at 1:07 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Is this not a release plugin problem?
If this error halted your build, was this with an
I don't really grok why this set of problems have come up now, but I
don't agree with requiring a surefire plugin upgrade to upgrade to
2.0.7. We've been advocating pinning the version of plugins - that
would be nastiness to have to go and change them.
If 2.1.3 or 2.2 or 2.3 of surefire wor
+1 working for me so far
On 6/13/07, LAMY Olivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(non-binding) +1 (works fine on corporate builds).
--
Olivier
-Message d'origine-
De : Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : mercredi 13 juin 2007 07:13
À : Maven Developers List
Objet : [VOTE] Rele
Hi Kenney,
On Jun 13, 2007, at 8:12 AM, Kenney Westerhof wrote:
Mark Donszelmann wrote:
Hi Kenney,
Hi Mark,
I was using 2.1.3 for surefire. Changed it to 2.3, and still get
error (slightly different):
Hi,
this is fixed later on; i think you're missing a dependency on junit.
I had
(non-binding) +1 (works fine on corporate builds).
--
Olivier
-Message d'origine-
De : Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : mercredi 13 juin 2007 07:13
À : Maven Developers List
Objet : [VOTE] Release Maven 2.0.7
Hi,
The release notes are here:
http://jira.codehaus.org/se
+1 works here.
-john
On Jun 13, 2007, at 1:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
The release notes are here:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
projectId=10500&styleName=Html&version=13138
The tag is here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/components/tags/maven-2.0.7/
Stag
Mark Donszelmann wrote:
Hi Kenney,
Hi Mark,
I was using 2.1.3 for surefire. Changed it to 2.3, and still get error
(slightly different):
Hi,
this is fixed later on; i think you're missing a dependency on junit.
Let me know if this is the case. Can't be due to 2.0.7 though, unless
this
If you can try this with the latest snapshot of surefire that would
be greatly appreciated.
I know what the problem is inside Maven, but if Surefire is loading
the same problem classes in a different way then we are going to have
a problem.
So if you can do a quick check using the snapsho
Is this not a release plugin problem?
If this error halted your build, was this with an older version of
the release plugin?
On 13 Jun 07, at 8:01 AM 13 Jun 07, Julien HENRY wrote:
(non-binding) -1
I just tried to prepare a release in a multi-module
project. Usually, the release:prepare fa
(non-binding) -1
I just tried to prepare a release in a multi-module
project. Usually, the release:prepare failed (because
Maven does not find released dependent artifact). An
easy fix was to run
> mvn install
and then
> mvn release:prepare
again.
The problem I have with maven-2.0.7 is release
p
Tested it on 3 more projects. All with multiple hierarchy levels and lots of
modules.
They all build fine, no issues to report.
However, sometimes SNAPSHOT dependencies are included with the timestamp
suffix, instead of 2.2-SNAPSHOT..
But this was the same as in previous maven releases..
Environ
Hi Kenney,
I was using 2.1.3 for surefire. Changed it to 2.3, and still get
error (slightly different):
java.lang.NullPointerException
at
org.apache.maven.plugin.surefire.SurefirePlugin.constructSurefireBooter(
SurefirePlugin.java:594)
at org.apache.maven.plugin.surefire.Su
(non-binding) +1
On 6/13/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
The release notes are here:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
projectId=10500&styleName=Html&version=13138
The tag is here:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/components/tags/maven-2.0.7/
Staging re
+1 - my builds are working fine with it.
Dan
On Wednesday 13 June 2007 01:12, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The release notes are here:
>
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
> projectId=10500&styleName=Html&version=13138
>
> The tag is here:
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
