Yah, go ahead.
Give'em all a common prefix in both names and project keys.
And dump'em into the maven categoy.
I've chatted with Noel and Serge, and they don't forsee a
problem upon migration to the ASF instance.
-bob
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Peter Donald wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 09:
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 09:06 am, Vincent Massol wrote:
> 2.5.1 is there! And I've already created a maven-plugins project. I've
> put it in the Maven category. My question is whether we should *instead*
> create a JIRA project per plugin and put all of them in the maven
> category?
+1
--
Cheers,
P
I took the head but I don't know why there was this diff on canonical
path...
I merged my beta 10 version to the head and might have done a mistake.
That's a stupid mistake I shouldn't have done... Worked to hastily...
About the strange diff, I just put a bad option... I'm not really used to
cvs y
The following comment has been added to this issue:
Author: Sean Timm
Created: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 5:41 PM
Body:
Hmm...the updated code only works if maven.dashboard.rungoals=true. However, I'm
doing a multiproject:site, so I've got maven.dashboard.rungoals=false. Is this a
misund
Message:
The following issue has been closed.
Resolver: Vincent Massol
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 5:34 PM
Done.
-
View the issue:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=MAVEN-1038
Here is an overview of
vmassol 2003/11/14 15:33:20
Modified:dashboard/xdocs changes.xml
dashboard/sample project.properties
dashboard plugin.jelly
Log:
Ensure that the Clover plugin will generate the XML report (and only the XML report)
when the Dashboard plugin is run. The C
On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 17:06, Vincent Massol wrote:
> Jason and all,
>
> 2.5.1 is there! And I've already created a maven-plugins project. I've
> put it in the Maven category. My question is whether we should *instead*
> create a JIRA project per plugin and put all of them in the maven
> category?
> -Original Message-
> From: bob mcwhirter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 14 November 2003 23:09
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] One JIRA project per plugin (was RE: [JIRA] maven-
> plugins project now exists)
>
> > I'd personally be +1 for one JIRA project per plugi
vmassol 2003/11/14 14:34:09
Modified:dashboard/xdocs changes.xml
dashboard plugin.properties
Log:
Do not exclude project.xml in the default
maven.dashboard.excludes list as it is already excluded by the default
maven.dashboard.includes list.
Revision Changes
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean Timm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 14 November 2003 23:09
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Dashboard Wish
>
> Just started using the Dashboard plugin...very nice! :) I'd love to
> see the individual cells turn into clickable links that take you t
The following comment has been added to this issue:
Author: Vincent Massol
Created: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 4:30 PM
Body:
I have voluntarily not included the generation of the Clover xml report as a default
(nor in the site goal). The reason is speed.
The xml report is *not* needed for
> I'd personally be +1 for one JIRA project per plugin. If we agree I'll
> start creating them and moving issues.
+1, with maybe, if possible, consider making families of plugins.
Dunno, maybe ie "parser plugins" or such? The antlr plugin just isn't
big enough to warrant an entire Jira project,
Jason and all,
2.5.1 is there! And I've already created a maven-plugins project. I've
put it in the Maven category. My question is whether we should *instead*
create a JIRA project per plugin and put all of them in the maven
category?
The reason I'm asking is because each plugin has it's own rele
Just started using the Dashboard plugin...very nice! :) I'd love to
see the individual cells turn into clickable links that take you to the
generated HTML report for a given project, eventually. I'll probably
try and tackle this someday if someone doesn't get around to it sooner,
but I figured I
The following issue has been updated:
Updater: Sean Timm (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 4:01 PM
Comment:
Here's the patch! I wasn't sure if we should check if .html was set to no and not do
it, so I left that alone for now...
Changes:
Attachment
Message:
A new issue has been created in JIRA.
-
View the issue:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=MAVEN-1038
Here is an overview of the issue:
-
On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 02:57, Vincent Massol wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've just created a new masven-plugins project that I've put in the
> maven category. I haven't moved the plugin components yet.
>
> BTW, shouldn't we have a JIRA project per maven plugin as they all have
> different release cycles?
Y
Message:
The following issue has been closed.
Resolver: Vincent Massol
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:57 AM
hehe... :-) It would be nice if you checked before asking for it ;-) It was done a few
hours after CS 3.2 was released! It's in maven-plugins CVS HEAD.
---
Message:
A new issue has been created in JIRA.
-
View the issue:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=MAVEN-1037
Here is an overview of the issue:
-
+1
- Kurt
On Nov 14, 2003, at 3:04 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
I propose to also remove nested in (for POM4 of
course).
Here's my +1
-Vincent
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [E
On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 03:04, Vincent Massol wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I propose to also remove nested in (for POM4 of
> course).
>
> Here's my +1
+1
Again, it's something we calculate. Hopefully not many people are still
using the in dependencies.
> -Vincent
>
>
> -
Hi,
If you are about to upgrade POM.
please have a look at comments in
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=MAVEN-674
Branches section is missing some really key information.
Changeing POM version is not frequent operation, so maybe it is
a good moment to introduce more compatible c
+1
Emmanuel
- Original Message -
From: "Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Maven Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:04 AM
Subject: [VOTE] More POM4 removal: for
> Hi,
>
> I propose to also remove nested in (for POM4 of
> course).
>
> Here
> -Original Message-
> From: Michal Maczka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 14 November 2003 09:51
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Make groupId mandatory for POM version 4?
>
> Vincent Massol wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I'd like to make a mandatory element in POM version
Vincent Massol wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to make a mandatory element in POM version 4. What do
you think? The reason is that I don't what the default can be if it's
not specified and if we want to have plugins that start using the
id/groupId/type elements, there must be a groupId defined.
Here's my +1
Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>I think it would be better not to mess with it right now. But it's a fine
>>goal for a cleaner bootstrap - the bootstrap ant task can just pull down the
>>JARs from the repo.
>
> The bootstrap can just run the reactor in ../maven-plugins instead of
> src/plugins-build. I wo
Message:
The following issue has been closed.
Resolver: Vincent Massol
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 2:19 AM
Done with several modifications (the patch was not against head).
-
View the issue:
http://jira.codehaus.org/s
vmassol 2003/11/14 00:17:15
Modified:checkstyle/xdocs changes.xml
checkstyle/src/plugin-resources checkstyle.jsl
Log:
Applied patch from Henri Tremblay for http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?id=12696";>MAVEN-1036. The
Checkstyle HTML report now provides in
The following comment has been added to this issue:
Author: Vincent Massol
Created: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 2:12 AM
Body:
Any reason why you've changed:
to
?
-
View the issue:
http://jira.
The following comment has been added to this issue:
Author: Vincent Massol
Created: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 2:11 AM
Body:
Also your patch is *NOT* against Maven HEAD it seems I'm hesitating to apply it...
Here's what's in HEAD:
Here's what you've used:
-
The following comment has been added to this issue:
Author: Vincent Massol
Created: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 2:07 AM
Body:
Next time, please use a *unified* diff and send a real patch: "cvs diff". Thanks.
-
View the issue:
Hi,
I propose to also remove nested in (for POM4 of
course).
Here's my +1
-Vincent
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
vmassol 2003/11/14 00:03:36
Modified:src/xsd maven-project-4.xsd
xdocschanges.xml
Log:
Removed from POM4. (which did already exist) must now be used when
using a POM4.
Revision ChangesPath
1.6 +1 -1 maven/src/xsd/maven-project-4.xsd
> -Original Message-
> From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 14 November 2003 06:28
> To: 'Maven Developers List'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] Implementing the new tag in POM
>
> > That's why I sent the patch... :-) It simply means that I've
> > renamed maven-
Hi,
I've just created a new masven-plugins project that I've put in the
maven category. I haven't moved the plugin components yet.
BTW, shouldn't we have a JIRA project per maven plugin as they all have
different release cycles?
Thanks
-Vincent
> -Original Message-
> From: Ben Walding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 14 November 2003 03:08
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Make groupId mandatory for POM version 4?
>
> +1 to fixing that
>
[snip]
>
> /
+1
>
> Whatever the solution, i'd prefer that the d
> -Original Message-
> From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 14 November 2003 04:35
> To: 'Maven Developers List'
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Make groupId mandatory for POM version 4?
>
> > What kind of deprecation period were you planning?
>
> I would suggest that we don't fin
37 matches
Mail list logo
