Re: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1

+1 John Casey wrote: > > So maybe we should publish far and wide the best practice of pegging the > plugin version, and require it in 2.1...then write a plugin to list the > available versions for a plugin, so users can check periodically. That > would > make life a little easier for users. >

Re: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1 -> lock down of plugin versions

, 2007 6:44 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1 -> lock down of plugin versions On 4/12/07, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think if we just change the plugin resolution so that it doesn't > assume &qu

RE: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1 -> lock down of plugin versions

I never use either to be honest so I'm not actually sure what the difference is. -Original Message- From: Barrie Treloar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 6:44 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-b

Re: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1 -> lock down of plugin versions

On 4/12/07, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think if we just change the plugin resolution so that it doesn't assume "RELEASE" if no version is set, it should be pretty easy right? IE someone can still put RELEASE as a version if they want to, but we would require something to be set and

RE: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1 -> lock down of plugin versions

don RELEASE all together? -Original Message- From: Arik Kfir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:39 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1 -> lock down of plugin versions +1 for that! On 4/11/07

Re: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1 -> lock down of plugin versions

+1 for that! On 4/11/07, Geoffrey De Smet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "they need to specify versions for all of their plugins in the POM" > > We can't do this in 2.0.x but it needs to be mandatory in 2.1. > Good! :) In my experience with spring-richclient most of the problems of an inst

Re: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1

+1 binding: John C, Stephane, Brian, Jason +1 non-binding: Dan K, Patrick -1 (non-veto): Brett I'll proceed with the release. Thanks, John On 4/6/07, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi everyone, This is the third attempt, after fixing: * http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASSEMBLY-194

Re: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1 -> lock down of plugin versions

"they need to specify versions for all of their plugins in the POM" We can't do this in 2.0.x but it needs to be mandatory in 2.1. Good! :) In my experience with spring-richclient most of the problems of an instable build went away the day I locked down all versions. However you coul

Re: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1

+1 On 10 Apr 07, at 12:19 PM 10 Apr 07, John Casey wrote: #1 gets us back into the realm of trying to decipher whether the behavior of version 2.1 has this as a *feature* or a *bug*. It's along the same lines as MASSEMBLY-194, IMO. I understand the ramifications here: Maven (at times) will

Re: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1

I'll go ahead and roll the beta-1 release, and we can fix the repository problem along with the other 17 issues that are still slated for 2.2-final. Thanks, John On 4/11/07, berndq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Brian E. Fox schrieb: > "This is a MUCH bigger problem than we seem to recognize. Wh

Re: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1

Brian E. Fox schrieb: "This is a MUCH bigger problem than we seem to recognize. Who wants to send the email to the users@ list to tell them that, oh, yeah, they need to specify versions for all of their plugins in the POM? I'm not wild about it, but I think that's the only way out...and I'm will

Re: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1

+1 I've been using 2.2-SNAP for some time now as well, but mainly only with small test projects. On 4/10/07, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 Thought I voted but I guess not. I've been running a snapshot for a long time now anyway. A release can only help to get feedback about what

RE: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1

+1 Thought I voted but I guess not. I've been running a snapshot for a long time now anyway. A release can only help to get feedback about what to fix. -Original Message- From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:55 AM To: Maven Developers List Subject:

Re: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1

On 10 Apr 07, at 12:42 PM 10 Apr 07, Brian E. Fox wrote: "This is a MUCH bigger problem than we seem to recognize. Who wants to send the email to the users@ list to tell them that, oh, yeah, they need to specify versions for all of their plugins in the POM? I'm not wild about it, but I thi

RE: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1

"So maybe we should publish far and wide the best practice of pegging the plugin version, and require it in 2.1...then write a plugin to list the available versions for a plugin, so users can check periodically. That would make life a little easier for users." +1 ---

Re: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1

So maybe we should publish far and wide the best practice of pegging the plugin version, and require it in 2.1...then write a plugin to list the available versions for a plugin, so users can check periodically. That would make life a little easier for users. -j On 4/10/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL

RE: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1

"This is a MUCH bigger problem than we seem to recognize. Who wants to send the email to the users@ list to tell them that, oh, yeah, they need to specify versions for all of their plugins in the POM? I'm not wild about it, but I think that's the only way out...and I'm willing to send that email."

Re: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1

#1 gets us back into the realm of trying to decipher whether the behavior of version 2.1 has this as a *feature* or a *bug*. It's along the same lines as MASSEMBLY-194, IMO. I understand the ramifications here: Maven (at times) will automatically select the version of a plugin to use by resolving

Re: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1

+1 Brett, I think (1) is a feature. If (2) does not work, let's address it to a beta-2 please. We really need to release this, get feedback and prepare beta-2. Thanks, Stéphane On 4/8/07, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1 Dan On Friday 06 April 2007 10:55, John Casey wrote: > Hi eve

Re: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1

-1 (just a vote, not a veto) I've found 2 backwards incompatibilities that affect its usability in my build: - dependencies are unpacked into a subdirectory with their artifactId where they weren't before (this may be correct behaviour where before it was a bug, just needs to be checked) -

Re: [vote] Attempt 3: Release maven-assembly-plugin 2.2-beta-1

+1 Dan On Friday 06 April 2007 10:55, John Casey wrote: > Hi everyone, > > This is the third attempt, after fixing: > > * > http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASSEMBLY-194/browse/MASSEMBLY-155> > > This bugfix actualy adds a new flag to the dependencySet, called > useTra