On 13 May 2015 at 18:36, oliver gondža wrote:
I have added core team back to jenkinsci/jenkins, I have no idea why it
was not there.
That solved my problem, thanks Oliver!
Harald
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Jenkins Developers group.
To
Hi,
I can no longer commit to core.
My last successful commit was on Apr 13:
https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/commit/ebffeccd10add9725a60519b8db9c453d9ca08a2
Now I get git-receive-pack not permitted and no longer have the rights to
accept PRs.
Thanks in advance,
Harald (albers)
--
You
The broken links from my initial post now all work.
Thanks to everybody involved in fixing it.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Jenkins Developers group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
and installed, fixing the links.
It depends on when this PR is going to be applied. I think the current state
should not last
longer than one or two weeks. Is there anything blocking the PR? Who could
install it?
On 31.10.2014, at 18:35, Harald Albers jenkins-...@albersweb.de wrote
The Open Issues link on several plugin wiki pages no longer works.
Following the link, I get the message There is no current active search.
Using Edit the current filter to correct errors link, I can append -plugin
to the component
parameter, which resolves the issue.
Plugins with this
On 9 Oct 2014 at 18:31, Jesse Glick wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Harald Albers jenkins-...@albersweb.de
wrote:
The guys seem to be preparing for an alternative implementation using unix
sockets.
Using jnr-unixsocket? That would be quite welcome; cf. JENKINS-23301.
I don't
Hi,
I have a plugin with a dependency to a library that uses
java.util.ServiceLoader to locate its
service implementation.
The dependency (com.github.docker-java:docker-java:0.10.2) is a single jar
containing
* service interface,
* service implementation,
* provider-configuration
Thanks, Jesse,
both suggestions work.
First of all, that code is dubious. If you have an _expected_
implementation that is collocated in the same JAR, it should simply
instantiate it directly (via constructor).
I agree. The guys seem to be preparing for an alternative implementation using
On 17 Jun 2014 at 22:04, Ulli Hafner wrote:
I created a new branch with my suggested changes:
https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/compare/master...new-rename
I really like this proposal.
And I'd suggest to also drop the pronoun in CopyExisting.
The default message could still be
On 21 Oct 2013 at 10:10, Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote:
I really appreciate everyone reviewing the locales they understand.
However, the lack of commit access for many means that they'd have to
leave comments and I would have to manually apply these changes.
There seemed to come in no more
From: jenkinsci-dev@googlegroups.com [mailto:jenkinsci-dev@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf
Of Harald Albers
Sent: den 3 april 2013 23:54
To: jenkinsci-dev@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: request for commit access
On 3 Apr 2013 at 10:33, Kohsuke Kawaguchi wrote:
I've set you up as a committer
repositories that I
checked, e.g. copyartifact-plugin, I have read-write access, but the jenkins
repo still appears
with read-only access.
Can you please check this?
Thanks in advance,
Harald
On 04/02/2013 10:32 PM, Harald Albers wrote:
I don't know what areas are available. So far I've been
I already contributed some pull requests related to translations.
Now I would like to have a more direct way for further contributions, as
suggested on
http://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Internationalization.
My jenkins and github user name is albers.
--
You received this message
to have commit access? (Otherwise
you will get
notifications for all source code changes in our group).
Ulli
Am 02.04.2013 um 21:55 schrieb Harald Albers jenkins-...@folk.de:
I already contributed some pull requests related to translations.
Now I would like to have a more
I have an open pull request https://github.com/jenkinsci/jenkins/pull/735 that
only contains
minor additions to message files. To my surprise, the request got marked as
unstable by
cloudbees-pull-request-builder. An amending commit even caused the
corresponding build to
fail.
Can someone
On 19 Mar 2013 at 15:59, Jesse Glick wrote:
The two test failures were already fixed in trunk (rather, suppressed on this
job since the cause of failure is unknown), so it should not affect new PRs
going forward.
An amending commit even caused the corresponding build to fail.
That
16 matches
Mail list logo
