Gitbox is easier to use with github which makes contribs easier. Otherwise
you dont see much difference as a git user.
Le 20 avr. 2018 00:16, "Emmanuel Bourg" a écrit :
> Le 20/04/2018 à 00:12, sebb a écrit :
> > I suggest asking Infra whether they are both going to be supported
> longer term.
>
For what it's worth:
$ mvn site site:stage
* succeeds with CP 43
* fails with CP 44, CP 45, CP 46
Failure caused by the japicmp plugin that runs even if no profile
triggering file calls for it. See error message below.
$ mvn site
also does not work.
Is there a way to skip "japicmp" (lik
Le 20/04/2018 à 00:12, sebb a écrit :
> I suggest asking Infra whether they are both going to be supported longer
> term.
FWIW when I migrated JEXL I had no other choice than using Gitbox. I'm
not sure Infra still accepts new git-wip repositories.
Emmanuel Bourg
I suggest asking Infra whether they are both going to be supported longer term.
On 19 April 2018 at 23:01, Matt Benson wrote:
> I don't know that I have a preference for any one component, but I do agree
> that it might be a positive move across Commons to aim for homogeneity in
> this regard fo
I don't know that I have a preference for any one component, but I do agree
that it might be a positive move across Commons to aim for homogeneity in
this regard for future migrations. If someone wants to start a vote on
*that*, I'd be glad to wait for its outcome before pulling the trigger on
[wea
The simple difference is that GitBox repositories are primarily used via
GitHub (you can enable issues, pull requests, etc.) while the other Git
style are primarily used via apache.org (Jira, patches, GitHub read-only
mirror, allows PRs, etc.).
On 19 April 2018 at 16:23, Matt Benson wrote:
> Tha
Thanks for these, Seb. Not sure I really consider myself fully edified yet,
but I know how to go to Infra HipChat when I have time for a thorough
explanation. :)
Matt
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 4:16 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 19 April 2018 at 22:09, Matt Benson wrote:
> > I'm not clear on how the optio
On 19 April 2018 at 22:09, Matt Benson wrote:
> I'm not clear on how the options differ and haven't found much that seems
> helpful in several minutes of web searching.
https://git.apache.org has some info, but I suspect it is getting out of date.
For example, the create a repo link leads to http
I'm not clear on how the options differ and haven't found much that seems
helpful in several minutes of web searching.
Matt
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
> That’s actually a good question. The two options are still available. While
> I think it would be pretty cool if all
That’s actually a good question. The two options are still available. While
I think it would be pretty cool if all of Commons was on GitBox for
convenience, I’m pretty sure all the new repos have still been git-wip
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 15:15, Ralph Goers
wrote:
> Is this vote for Git or Gitbo
Is this vote for Git or Gitbox or is there any difference these days?
Ralph
> On Apr 19, 2018, at 8:46 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
>
> Hello,
> After having received some support from a "feeler" email, I would like to
> propose the formal vote to migrate this Commons component to Git for
> version c
+1
Le 19 avr. 2018 20:17, "Pascal Schumacher" a
écrit :
> +1
>
> Am 19.04.2018 um 17:46 schrieb Matt Benson:
>
>> Hello,
>> After having received some support from a "feeler" email, I would like to
>> propose the formal vote to migrate this Commons component to Git for
>> version control. This v
+1
Am 19.04.2018 um 17:46 schrieb Matt Benson:
Hello,
After having received some support from a "feeler" email, I would like to
propose the formal vote to migrate this Commons component to Git for
version control. This vote will be open for at least 72 hours, or until
April 22, 2018 @ 16:00 UTC.
+1 (binding)
Gary
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
> Hello,
> After having received some support from a "feeler" email, I would like to
> propose the formal vote to migrate this Commons component to Git for
> version control. This vote will be open for at least 72 hours, or
> On Apr 19, 2018, at 11:46 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
>
> Hello,
> After having received some support from a "feeler" email, I would like to
> propose the formal vote to migrate this Commons component to Git for
> version control. This vote will be open for at least 72 hours, or until
> April 22,
+1 (non-binding)
On 19 April 2018 at 10:47, Matt Benson wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> > After having received some support from a "feeler" email, I would like to
> > propose the formal vote to migrate this Commons component to Git for
> > version c
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Matt Benson wrote:
> Hello,
> After having received some support from a "feeler" email, I would like to
> propose the formal vote to migrate this Commons component to Git for
> version control. This vote will be open for at least 72 hours, or until
> April 22, 20
Hello,
After having received some support from a "feeler" email, I would like to
propose the formal vote to migrate this Commons component to Git for
version control. This vote will be open for at least 72 hours, or until
April 22, 2018 @ 16:00 UTC.
Thanks,
Matt
Hi.
Thread hijacking: OP was not about documentation or release process.
Gilles
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 11:05:45 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
Pardon I meant:
http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html#Create_the_Release_Candidate_with_the_Commons_Release_Plugin.
On Apr 19, 2018, at 10:54 AM,
Pardon I meant:
http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html#Create_the_Release_Candidate_with_the_Commons_Release_Plugin.
> On Apr 19, 2018, at 10:54 AM, Rob Tompkins wrote:
>
> Give this a read:
>
> http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html#Create_the_Release_Candidate_with_the_Comm
Give this a read:
http://commons.apache.org/releases/prepare.html#Create_the_Release_Candidate_with_the_Commons_Release_Plugin
I think that covers it.
-Rob
> On Apr 19, 2018, at 10:42 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 8:24 AM, Rob Tompkins wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 19
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 8:24 AM, Rob Tompkins wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 2018, at 10:20 AM, Gary Gregory
> wrote:
> >
> > Have the new build/release plugins been integrated in the docs?
> > https://commons.apache.org/releases/index.html
> >
>
> Working on that.
>
Thank you Rob!
Gary
>
> > I'd
> On Apr 19, 2018, at 10:20 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> Have the new build/release plugins been integrated in the docs?
> https://commons.apache.org/releases/index.html
>
Working on that.
> I'd like to cut some RCs but I'd prefer to follow some docs.
>
> Gary
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 7
Have the new build/release plugins been integrated in the docs?
https://commons.apache.org/releases/index.html
I'd like to cut some RCs but I'd prefer to follow some docs.
Gary
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 7:29 AM, Gilles
wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 09:17:45 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
>
>> Try run
On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 09:17:45 -0400, Rob Tompkins wrote:
Try running package between “mvn“ and “site”
Not working.
[And if it did, it would not be a "feature" (IMHO) wrt a simpler
command line: If "package" is a dependency, it should be called
automatically.]
Gilles
On Apr 19, 2018, at 9:13 AM
Try running package between “mvn“ and “site”
> On Apr 19, 2018, at 9:13 AM, Gilles wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> $ mvn site site:stage
>
> fails when there is no previous version:
>
> ---CUT---
> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal
> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-site-plugin:3.7:site (default-site) on proj
Hi.
$ mvn site site:stage
fails when there is no previous version:
---CUT---
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal
org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-site-plugin:3.7:site (default-site) on
project commons-geometry-core: Error generating
japicmp-maven-plugin:0.11.1:cmp-report report: Failed to generate
Thank you!
Gary
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018, 03:30 wrote:
> Author: markt
> Date: Thu Apr 19 09:30:50 2018
> New Revision: 1829521
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1829521&view=rev
> Log:
> Correct names of class version constants given change in Java versioning.
> Fix for Java 9 requires dep
28 matches
Mail list logo
