And remember also to apply later changes to that files that were not
ported to the branch as they didn't exist there.
On 6/21/06, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 20/06/2006 10:27 PM, jerome lacoste wrote:
On 6/10/06, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1, but considering it an
On 6/10/06, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1, but considering it an exception to the rule, not a change to the rule.
I'd rather we were doing .x releases every 6 months instead.
+1: 2
-1: 0
Is that sufficient? If so, who's responsible to apply this change onto
the branch ?
Jerome
On 20/06/2006 10:27 PM, jerome lacoste wrote:
On 6/10/06, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1, but considering it an exception to the rule, not a change to the
rule.
I'd rather we were doing .x releases every 6 months instead.
+1: 2
-1: 0
Is that sufficient?
Kenney makes 3, but
Hi there,
This issue is about adding an 'implementation' parameter to the
@parameter annotation for mojo fields, so you can specify a default
implementation in case the field's type is an interface.
Since it's a new feature, I'm asking whether this should be applied to
the 2.0.x branch too?
On 6/9/06, Kenney Westerhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi there,
This issue is about adding an 'implementation' parameter to the
@parameter annotation for mojo fields, so you can specify a default
implementation in case the field's type is an interface.
Since it's a new feature, I'm asking
it's ok for me if all tests are ok. With it, mojo will can evoluate without
waiting maven 2.1
Emmanuel
Kenney Westerhof a écrit :
Hi there,
This issue is about adding an 'implementation' parameter to the
@parameter annotation for mojo fields, so you can specify a default
implementation in
+1, but considering it an exception to the rule, not a change to the rule.
I'd rather we were doing .x releases every 6 months instead.
- Brett
Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
it's ok for me if all tests are ok. With it, mojo will can evoluate
without waiting maven 2.1
Emmanuel
Kenney Westerhof a
