Note that your procedure is not the standard one and anybody who releases the
software has to know the details. I consider it to be an advantage of maven
that one shouldn't need to, so I configure it in the pom appropriately.
On Jul 25, 2013, at 4:22 PM, Mirko Friedenhagen wrote:
> Russel,
>
Russel,
publishing to github with the maven-scm-publish-plugin is a piece of cake:
* Create an empty branch gh-pages
* Run mvn clean verify site site:stage scm-publish:publish-scm.
Very, very fast and IMO much better than using the HTTP-Wagon.
Regards Mirko
--
http://illegalstateexception.blogspot
+1 There are lots of advantages to DVCS over svn (I'm partial to hg myself, but
the annoyances of using git are generally tolerable).
As for the site plugin, the only issue I am aware of is that hosts such as
github don't have a suitable extension to allow direct publishing of websites.
But you
+1 for moving to git from me as well. We. use Maven in about 1000 inhouse
projects (95% still using SVN) and Maven adding artifactId out of the blue
at free will in inheriting projects is a pain in the neck for SVN as well,
while trying out releases completely locally with git is really helpful
IMO
Totally fair! :-)
I don't have the time or wrist-strength to go through JIRA and dig out all
of the examples, however anyone can do that. I don't use SCM except during
release, either.
I'd argue that it's not good enough for m-rel-p use, however it may well be
good enough for MOJO use cases of th
I do get the feeling that you refer to the general Git functionality as
implemented by the Maven SCM for Git.
In that case, I agree completely with your statement.
Do you feel that the (relatively limited) SCM feature set used within the
normal operation of the maven-release-plugin is also inferio
+0
Wayne
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Baptiste Mathus wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The following vote is a first (baby) step to keep us moving after our recent
> discussion about this.
>
> *Just checking here nobody is against moving mojo to git, whatever be the
> path.*
>
> (So, this *vote is NOT* abou
No, it was a contraction. The full form was "Git functionality in Maven
doesn't work "well" at all.". Both Maven and Git work wonderfully, while
not in the same terminal :-p
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:12 AM, Lee Thompson wrote:
> Think you have it backwards. Didn't you reverse "git" and "maven"
+0: Currently something else to do than working on that and the
current setup is fine for me.
2013/7/23 Baptiste Mathus :
> Hi,
>
> The following vote is a first (baby) step to keep us moving after our recent
> discussion about this.
>
> *Just checking here nobody is against moving mojo to git, wh
Think you have it backwards. Didn't you reverse "git" and "maven" in this
statement?
On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:45 AM, Fred Cooke wrote:
> Git doesn't work "well" at all. You can't set env vars and have them
> be respected, it does expensive operations unnecessarily, you're
> unable to enter meanin
+1
2013/7/23 Milos Kleint :
> +0, it works currently without major obstacles for me now
>
> Milos
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Karl Heinz Marbaise
> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> from me...
>>
>> local check ins, rebasing branches etc. is a really good feature which SVN
>> does not have...
>>
+0, it works currently without major obstacles for me now
Milos
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
> +1
>
> from me...
>
> local check ins, rebasing branches etc. is a really good feature which SVN
> does not have...
>
>
> Kind regards
> Karl-Heinz Marbaise
> --
> Soft
+1
from me...
local check ins, rebasing branches etc. is a really good feature which
SVN does not have...
Kind regards
Karl-Heinz Marbaise
--
SoftwareEntwicklung Beratung SchulungTel.: +49 (0) 2405 / 415 893
Dipl.Ing.(FH) Karl-Heinz MarbaiseICQ#: 135949029
Hauptstrasse 177
Git certainly is the way, and perhaps the "sink or swim" method will bring
benefits, or perhaps the use cases in MOJO don't trip over any of the
brokenness, but I sure do with my stuff, and am forced to work around it in
ugly ways.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Rickard von Essen <
rickard.von.e
+1
Git is the way.
// Rickard
Hi,
The following vote is a first (baby) step to keep us moving after our
recent discussion about this.
*Just checking here nobody is against moving mojo to git, whatever be the
path.*
(So, this *vote is NOT* about dirty details like how many repositories,
when, h
+1.
Werner Guttmann
On 23.07.2013 15:19, Baptiste Mathus wrote:
Hi,
The following vote is a first (baby) step to keep us moving after our
recent discussion about this.
*Just checking here nobody is against moving mojo to git, whatever be
the path.*
(So, this *vote is NOT* about dirty details
-1
I don't have issues with subversion and I know some GIT black belts have
great ideas how this should be done.
However, I think this is a very critical step so I'd prefer not do this
vote during the summer holidays to give does experienced team members a
chance to respond (and to enjoy th
+0 svn works for me. May be we should wait for all plugin's at apache
maven to migrate first?
-D
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Anders Hammar wrote:
> +0
>
> I expect a switch to git to include good and detailed instructions for eg
> releases.
>
> /Anders (mobile)
> Den 23 jul 2013 15:19 sk
+0
I expect a switch to git to include good and detailed instructions for eg
releases.
/Anders (mobile)
Den 23 jul 2013 15:19 skrev "Baptiste Mathus" :
> Hi,
>
> The following vote is a first (baby) step to keep us moving after our
> recent discussion about this.
>
> *Just checking here nobody i
Hi Fred,
Could you please list the corresponding JIRA tickets please?
Btw, I can't really see how that can could be really blocking. Apache Maven
and many maven-*- itself are now source controlled with git AND released
with m-r-p. We also use that combination at work and have no issue. So it's
al
+1
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Lennart Jörelid
wrote:
> +1
>
> DVCS works well with the maven-release-plugin.
>
> ... but the Maven Docs indicating how sites/URLs/VCSs should be sculpted
> for multi-mode projects could do with a profound overhaul.
>
>
> 2013/7/23 Tony Chemit
>
>> On Tue, 2
Git doesn't work "well" at all. You can't set env vars and have them
be respected, it does expensive operations unnecessarily, you're
unable to enter meaningful tag data, and many other broken things,
quite a few of which are down to SVN-ness that's built into Maven. It
does work, if you bend over
+1
DVCS works well with the maven-release-plugin.
... but the Maven Docs indicating how sites/URLs/VCSs should be sculpted
for multi-mode projects could do with a profound overhaul.
2013/7/23 Tony Chemit
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:19:50 +0200
> Baptiste Mathus wrote:
>
> +0, works fine to me o
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:19:50 +0200
Baptiste Mathus wrote:
+0, works fine to me on svn.
> Hi,
>
> The following vote is a first (baby) step to keep us moving after our
> recent discussion about this.
>
> *Just checking here nobody is against moving mojo to git, whatever be the
> path.*
>
> (So
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 04:11:40PM +0200, Fred Cooke wrote:
> Even though I'm the biggest Git fan ever, bar maybe Linus, -1 until
> m-rel-p and m-site-p are properly fixed. Once they're stable for DVCS
> usage then BIG +1, but not before.
I'm +1. What are the problems with the release plugin? I've
Even though I'm the biggest Git fan ever, bar maybe Linus, -1 until
m-rel-p and m-site-p are properly fixed. Once they're stable for DVCS
usage then BIG +1, but not before.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Brett Okken wrote:
> 0 - I have had no issues with svn.
>
> On Jul 23, 2013 8:20 AM, "Bapti
0 - I have had no issues with svn.
On Jul 23, 2013 8:20 AM, "Baptiste Mathus" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The following vote is a first (baby) step to keep us moving after our
> recent discussion about this.
>
> *Just checking here nobody is against moving mojo to git, whatever be the
> path.*
>
> (So, this
+1
2013/7/23 Stephen Connolly
> 0: I'm not currently bothered either way
>
>
> On 23 July 2013 14:19, Baptiste Mathus wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The following vote is a first (baby) step to keep us moving after our
>> recent discussion about this.
>>
>> *Just checking here nobody is against moving
0: I'm not currently bothered either way
On 23 July 2013 14:19, Baptiste Mathus wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The following vote is a first (baby) step to keep us moving after our
> recent discussion about this.
>
> *Just checking here nobody is against moving mojo to git, whatever be the
> path.*
>
> (So,
Hi,
The following vote is a first (baby) step to keep us moving after our
recent discussion about this.
*Just checking here nobody is against moving mojo to git, whatever be the
path.*
(So, this *vote is NOT* about dirty details like how many repositories,
when, how, github or not, and so on. Th
30 matches
Mail list logo
