MASSEMBLY-192 is fixed in trunk, and I'm just about to apply it to the tag...then we could roll another candidate, though I do want to resolve Max's issue above as well.
Max: I'm tempted to say that we should look for decimal versions of common octal expressions, then prefix the rest with '0' to ensure they're interpreted as octal (unless they have 0x in front, that is). Is that a decent solution? -john On 3/28/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-1 But it got really close :) Unfortunately, I found a regression, though it looks a simple one to fix: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASSEMBLY-192 I'm continuing my testing past this to see if there are any other issues, though it looks fine. - Brett On 29/03/2007, at 2:59 AM, John Casey wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I wanted to call a vote to release a beta version of the new assembly > plugin. There are still some outstanding issues (though not as many > as jira > would have you believe; they just need tests), but I think we're at > around > 95-99% backward compatibility and the new features seem to be > working well. > It's been just sitting in SVN for quite awhile now, and many people > are > using it directly from there. I'd like to provide better support > for those > people, and start getting more feedback on exactly what's still > broken. > > The change list is pretty large, but is mainly concerned with > refactoring > the plugin away from the old monolithic approach to one that uses > phases to > handle the different descriptor sections, along with common task > classes to > handle behavior shared between phases. > > Road Map: > > http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa? > projectId=11126&styleName=Html&version=12617 > > > Tag: > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/tags/maven-assembly- > plugin-2.2-beta-1 > > Staging repository: > > http://people.apache.org/~jdcasey/stage/repo > > Also, since this is just a beta, and there are some folks out there > waiting > on this release to release some of their own components, I'd like > to make > this a shorter vote; say, of around 24-36 hrs max. Regardless of > whether we > agree to do this in short order, I would like to get this release > out on > this vote, so don't let the timing affect your +1...if people > complain, I'll > just let it sit for the standard 72h. > > So, let's try for 24hrs. Please vote +1/+0/-1. > > Here's my +1. > > -john --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
