On 11 September 2011 18:38, wrote:
> sebb wrote:
>
>>On 11 September 2011 16:08, Ralph Goers
>>wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 11, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>
>>
> How exactly? I am asking this because I don't know how to do it.
> Won't whoever wants to retrieve it have to know
sebb wrote:
>On 11 September 2011 16:08, Ralph Goers
>wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 11, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>
>
How exactly? I am asking this because I don't know how to do it.
Won't whoever wants to retrieve it have to know the (now
non-existent) tag name? Or will i
On 11 September 2011 17:59, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 9/11/11 8:16 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 11 September 2011 16:08, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> On Sep 11, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>
> How exactly? I am asking this because I don't know how to do it.
> Won't whoever wants to retrieve
On 9/11/11 8:16 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 11 September 2011 16:08, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> On Sep 11, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>
How exactly? I am asking this because I don't know how to do it.
Won't whoever wants to retrieve it have to know the (now
non-existent) tag name?
Le 11 sept. 2011 17:08, "Ralph Goers" a écrit :
>
>
> On Sep 11, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
> >>>
> >> How exactly? I am asking this because I don't know how to do it.
> >> Won't whoever wants to retrieve it have to know the (now
> >> non-existent) tag name? Or will it work from a ch
On 11 September 2011 16:08, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Sep 11, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>
>>> How exactly? I am asking this because I don't know how to do it.
>>> Won't whoever wants to retrieve it have to know the (now
>>> non-existent) tag name? Or will it work from a checkout/
On 11 September 2011 15:39, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 9/11/11 6:53 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 11 September 2011 14:43, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 9/11/11 3:26 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 11/09/2011 02:51, sebb a écrit :
> On 10 September 2011 21:12, Phil Steitz
> wrote:
>> On 9/10/11 10:
On Sep 11, 2011, at 7:41 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>>
>> How exactly? I am asking this because I don't know how to do it.
>> Won't whoever wants to retrieve it have to know the (now
>> non-existent) tag name? Or will it work from a checkout/URL of
>> trunk or the actual release tag?
>
> Sorry,
On 9/11/11 7:39 AM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 9/11/11 6:53 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 11 September 2011 14:43, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 9/11/11 3:26 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 11/09/2011 02:51, sebb a écrit :
> On 10 September 2011 21:12, Phil Steitz
> wrote:
>> On 9/10/11 10:34 AM, se
On 9/11/11 6:53 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 11 September 2011 14:43, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 9/11/11 3:26 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>>> Le 11/09/2011 02:51, sebb a écrit :
On 10 September 2011 21:12, Phil Steitz
wrote:
> On 9/10/11 10:34 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 10 September 2011 17:58, Ph
On 11 September 2011 14:43, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 9/11/11 3:26 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
>> Le 11/09/2011 02:51, sebb a écrit :
>>> On 10 September 2011 21:12, Phil Steitz
>>> wrote:
On 9/10/11 10:34 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 10 September 2011 17:58, Phil Steitz
> wrote:
>> On 9/10/11
On 9/11/11 3:26 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
> Le 11/09/2011 02:51, sebb a écrit :
>> On 10 September 2011 21:12, Phil Steitz
>> wrote:
>>> On 9/10/11 10:34 AM, sebb wrote:
On 10 September 2011 17:58, Phil Steitz
wrote:
> On 9/10/11 9:21 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> Are you guys arguin
Le 11/09/2011 02:51, sebb a écrit :
On 10 September 2011 21:12, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 9/10/11 10:34 AM, sebb wrote:
On 10 September 2011 17:58, Phil Steitz wrote:
On 9/10/11 9:21 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
Are you guys arguing about manifests or build processes. I can't really tell.
There is n
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 5:59 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 9 September 2011 08:35, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> Good morning guys,
>> I just did an experiment on my local checkout of the parent pom,
>> adding the buildnumber plugin, in order to have a new
>> `Implementation-Build` manifest entry in the jars, w
On 11 September 2011 03:55, Ralph Goers wrote:
> When you say trunk would be replaced by the tag name would that be the tag
> that ends with RCx? If so I'd have a problem with that as that tag won't
> exist for long.
Yes, as previously discussed at length in this thread.
> Ralph
>
> On Sep 10
When you say trunk would be replaced by the tag name would that be the tag that
ends with RCx? If so I'd have a problem with that as that tag won't exist for
long.
Ralph
On Sep 10, 2011, at 6:00 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 10 September 2011 21:04, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 10, 2011, at 10:34
On 10 September 2011 21:04, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Sep 10, 2011, at 10:34 AM, sebb wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't see what the harm is in adding the header line.
>
> Before I agree with you I'd want to see what the exact definition would be.
The manifest config in the pom is:
${implementation.build}
On 10 September 2011 21:12, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 9/10/11 10:34 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 10 September 2011 17:58, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 9/10/11 9:21 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
Are you guys arguing about manifests or build processes. I can't really
tell.
There is no perfect bui
On 9/10/11 10:34 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 10 September 2011 17:58, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 9/10/11 9:21 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> Are you guys arguing about manifests or build processes. I can't really
>>> tell.
>>>
>>> There is no perfect build process. I'm not a fan of voting on an RC and
>>> th
On Sep 10, 2011, at 10:34 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>
> I don't see what the harm is in adding the header line.
Before I agree with you I'd want to see what the exact definition would be.
Ralph
On 10 September 2011 17:58, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 9/10/11 9:21 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> Are you guys arguing about manifests or build processes. I can't really tell.
>>
>> There is no perfect build process. I'm not a fan of voting on an RC and then
>> renaming the tag and so with VFS I created
On 9/10/11 9:21 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Are you guys arguing about manifests or build processes. I can't really tell.
>
> There is no perfect build process. I'm not a fan of voting on an RC and then
> renaming the tag and so with VFS I created the tag over and over again for
> each candidate. Th
Are you guys arguing about manifests or build processes. I can't really tell.
There is no perfect build process. I'm not a fan of voting on an RC and then
renaming the tag and so with VFS I created the tag over and over again for each
candidate. That has its own pitfalls but works since Nexus s
On 10 September 2011 16:28, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 9/10/11 8:18 AM, sebb wrote:
>> On 10 September 2011 16:09, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> Could be I am misunderstanding the proposal here, but IIUC there is another
>>> problem when it comes to release jars. Current practice is to create the
>>> ja
On 9/10/11 8:18 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 10 September 2011 16:09, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> Could be I am misunderstanding the proposal here, but IIUC there is another
>> problem when it comes to release jars. Current practice is to create the
>> jars from what ends up being the final RC tag. This tag
On 10 September 2011 16:09, Phil Steitz wrote:
> Could be I am misunderstanding the proposal here, but IIUC there is another
> problem when it comes to release jars. Current practice is to create the
> jars from what ends up being the final RC tag. This tag is then either
> copied or moved to
On 10 September 2011 15:46, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 9/9/11 2:34 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 9 September 2011 19:58, Phil Steitz wrote:
>>> On 9/9/11 12:35 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
Good morning guys,
I just did an experiment on my local checkout of the parent pom,
adding the buildnumber
Could be I am misunderstanding the proposal here, but IIUC there is another
problem when it comes to release jars. Current practice is to create the jars
from what ends up being the final RC tag. This tag is then either copied or
moved to the release tag, which becomes the definitive source.
On 9/9/11 2:34 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 9 September 2011 19:58, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> On 9/9/11 12:35 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>>> Good morning guys,
>>> I just did an experiment on my local checkout of the parent pom,
>>> adding the buildnumber plugin, in order to have a new
>>> `Implementation-Buil
On 10 September 2011 07:47, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> 2011/9/9 sebb :
>> On 9 September 2011 21:50, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>>> 2011/9/9 sebb :
On 9 September 2011 14:53, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> Maybe possible to add something for folks using git svn.
>
> An other profile activated if .gi
2011/9/9 sebb :
> On 9 September 2011 21:50, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>> 2011/9/9 sebb :
>>> On 9 September 2011 14:53, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Maybe possible to add something for folks using git svn.
An other profile activated if .git is present and change the scm
provider used for bu
On 9 September 2011 21:50, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> 2011/9/9 sebb :
>> On 9 September 2011 14:53, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>>> Maybe possible to add something for folks using git svn.
>>>
>>> An other profile activated if .git is present and change the scm
>>> provider used for buildnumber (see [1] ) :
>
On 9 September 2011 19:58, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 9/9/11 12:35 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> Good morning guys,
>> I just did an experiment on my local checkout of the parent pom,
>> adding the buildnumber plugin, in order to have a new
>> `Implementation-Build` manifest entry in the jars, where r
2011/9/9 sebb :
> On 9 September 2011 14:53, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>> Maybe possible to add something for folks using git svn.
>>
>> An other profile activated if .git is present and change the scm
>> provider used for buildnumber (see [1] ) :
>
> Just wondering - why is svnjava not the default?
th
good point :)
let me investigate, thanks for the feedbacks!!!
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 9/9/11 12:35 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
>> Good morning guys,
>> I just did an experiment on my local checko
On 9/9/11 12:35 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Good morning guys,
> I just did an experiment on my local checkout of the parent pom,
> adding the buildnumber plugin, in order to have a new
> `Implementation-Build` manifest entry in the jars, where reported the
> revision number and the timestamp.
> I
On 9 September 2011 14:53, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> Maybe possible to add something for folks using git svn.
>
> An other profile activated if .git is present and change the scm
> provider used for buildnumber (see [1] ) :
Just wondering - why is svnjava not the default?
It seems to work just as wel
seen your svn activity, thanks for reviewing!!!
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 5:21 PM, sebb wrote:
> I've made some minor adjustments, and uploaded the snapshot.
>
> Seems to work fine for me.
> Tested in NET; also works for the ext
I've made some minor adjustments, and uploaded the snapshot.
Seems to work fine for me.
Tested in NET; also works for the extra jars created by Ant so long as
the manifest is updated accordingly.
On 9 September 2011 15:02, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> hi all guys,
> I just committed the r1167170 of t
hi all guys,
I just committed the r1167170 of the parent pom, please review.
Any suggestion/improvement is welcome, feel free to work on it! :)
Since Olivier is also the buildnumber plugin maintainer can more than useful!
Have a nice day, all the best!
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
Maybe possible to add something for folks using git svn.
An other profile activated if .git is present and change the scm
provider used for buildnumber (see [1] ) :
providerImplementations : git (hackhish maybe and not tested :-) ).
The git scm provider use : git rev-parse --verify HEAD .
Which
OK,
I also did a little experiment following Olivier's suggestions and it worked.
Just the time to revert to the initial form so I can commit and you
all can see how it works and play with it.
TIA!
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:41
On 9 September 2011 14:28, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> @Seb: revision-unknown sounds better indeed
>
> @Olivier: you are always super :) going to move the stuff to the profile
Not sure I agree that the profile is a good idea; it only works for
Subversion (the plugin supports other CMS) and the test r
@Seb: revision-unknown sounds better indeed
@Olivier: you are always super :) going to move the stuff to the profile
WDYT if I commit that stuff and reverting if starts creating issues?
we have Olivier in any way ;)
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri
why not having a profile for that ? (folks using git svn or building
from the src distrib).
buildnumber
.svn
org.codehaus.mojo
buildnumber-maven-plugin
blabla setup of the plugin
On 9 September 2011 14:05, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> The plugin supports the offline mode, I configured it to add
>
> Implementation-Build: local-dev; 2011-09-09 09:17:22+0200
Not sure "local-dev" is clear; I would replace it with "revision
unknown" or similar.
> instead of
>
> Implementatio
The plugin supports the offline mode, I configured it to add
Implementation-Build: local-dev; 2011-09-09 09:17:22+0200
instead of
Implementation-Build: r1166864; 2011-09-09 09:17:22+0200
WDYT?
Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://www.99soft.org/
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 a
On 9 September 2011 08:35, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> Good morning guys,
> I just did an experiment on my local checkout of the parent pom,
> adding the buildnumber plugin, in order to have a new
> `Implementation-Build` manifest entry in the jars, where reported the
> revision number and the timesta
Good morning guys,
I just did an experiment on my local checkout of the parent pom,
adding the buildnumber plugin, in order to have a new
`Implementation-Build` manifest entry in the jars, where reported the
revision number and the timestamp.
I applied locally on [chain] and got:
Implementatio
49 matches
Mail list logo
