> -Original Message-
> From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 21 November 2003 00:33
> To: 'Maven Developers List'
> Subject: RE: Maven Development Roadmap (thread wrap up)
>
>
> > I think there should be no plugins with 1.0 bugs slated on
> > them as we wish to separate t
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 17:57, Brett Porter wrote:
[snip]
> How does this sound? Can we keep all discussion in one thread now?
I agree with all of it.
+1
> Thanks!
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://tambora.zenplex.org
In short, man creates for himself a
> I think there should be no plugins with 1.0 bugs slated on
> them as we wish to separate them from the core. I think what
> we should do is package the latest release of all plugins in
> 1.0 final release.
>
What I meant here was that MAVEN the project in JIRA - I think - still has
bugs tha
> -Original Message-
> From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 20 November 2003 23:58
> To: Maven Developers List ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> Subject: Maven Development Roadmap (thread wrap up)
>
> Ok, let's see if I can take a stab at this roadmap and wrap up all the
> ongoing th
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 12:55, Ole Matzura wrote:
> I've added som properties to the xdoc plugin (for hiding the banner and
> breadcrumbs).. how do I submit these to the maven-plugins team/repository?
See http://wiki.codehaus.org/maven/SubmittingPatches
--
Martin Skopp
Riege Software International
Ok, let's see if I can take a stab at this roadmap and wrap up all the
ongoing threads. This can be added to the wiki later.
Maven 1.0: existing branch to be recreated at the point of last merge on
HEAD, all of HEAD must be on it except POMv4.
- MAVEN-1_0-BRANCH will be the development path for M
> -Original Message-
> From: Michal Maczka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 20 November 2003 22:35
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Make groupId mandatory for POM version 4?
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 4:14 PM
[...]
>
> I think we need to talk about my comments above on letting users
> access v4
> features in a v3 POM.
>
> I think we should talk about timing. I don't think intro
"Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 21/11/2003 03:19:46 AM:
> > The next release for us is 1.0, not 1.1-SNAPSHOT. We haven't had a 1.0
> > yet.
>
> Yes, of course. But are you saying nobody is allowed to develop for the
> following release (1.1) before 1.0 is released? As it is very bad
Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 13/11/2003 02:49:20 AM:
[snip]
> pretty much all of the serious showstoppers. It needed another few weeks
> of work by others than myself but you gave up on the effort. That is
> truly disappointing to me.
I tried for weeks, with very little input, to get
> I don't think what we currently do is really the best. I
> think your notion of having a branch where work is done for
> the impending release probably makes more sense. Leaving HEAD
> for the most current development processes target for
> subsequent releases also makes more sense to me as
The following comment has been added to this issue:
Author: John Casey
Created: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:50 PM
Body:
Okay, so in the EJB manifest, should the Specification-* attributes refer to the EJB
spec? If so, can we hard-code the specification vendor and title as SUN and EJB/J2EE
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 11:19, Vincent Massol wrote:
> Why? What are other's experience? AFAIK, there's no better way,
> especially for projects like Maven where it takes several months between
> a RC and a release.
>
I don't think what we currently do is really the best. I think your
notion of ha
The following comment has been added to this issue:
Author: Stephen McConnell
Created: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:54 AM
Body:
If you submitting a patch that references the POM short description - can you please
check for trimming of the value to a single line. Currently something like t
The following comment has been added to this issue:
Author: Stephen McConnell
Created: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:49 AM
Body:
My impression is that the maven.ejb.plugin assignment of pom.currentVersion to
Specification-Version is a bug. A spec version is not the same as an impl version.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 20 November 2003 15:41
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: Version 1.0, 1.1, HEAD and BRANCHES (was 1.0 RE: [VOTE]
Make
> groupId mandatory for POM version 4?)
>
> "Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 20 November 2003 15:41
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: Plugin compatibilities with Maven core
>
[snip]
> > * Are we going to also specify what version of the POM a plugin
> > supports? Now that
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 20 November 2003 16:46
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: RE: Version 1.0, 1.1, HEAD and BRANCHES (was 1.0 RE: [VOTE]
Make
> groupId mandatory for POM version 4?)
>
> Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
The following issue has been updated:
Updater: Jörg Schaible (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:14 AM
Comment:
The patch to respect a given template dir.
Changes:
Attachment changed to plugin.jelly.diff
-
Message:
A new issue has been created in JIRA.
-
View the issue:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=MAVEN-1046
Here is an overview of the issue:
-
Jörg Schaible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 21/11/2003
02:21:10 AM:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thursday, November 20, 2003 3:41 PM:
>
> > "Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 20/11/2003 08:05:18
> > PM:
> >
> >> I guess it all depends on the question of whether we wish to link POM
>
Message:
The following issue has been closed.
Resolver: dion gillard
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 9:38 AM
Fixed in 1.3-SNAPSHOT of the PMD plugin
-
View the issue:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=MAV
dion2003/11/20 07:35:16
Modified:pmd/xdocs changes.xml
pmd plugin.jelly
Log:
Fix for Maven-1044. Allow multiple includes/excludes
Revision ChangesPath
1.15 +3 -0 maven-plugins/pmd/xdocs/changes.xml
Index: changes.xml
==
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 02:45, Vincent Massol wrote:
> Ok for Lead Developer. I've started modifying some and put myself as
> Lead Developer (not committed yet). If others also want to be lead
> developer on those project, feel free to tell me. I'll be happy to
> change that. That said, I believe, th
"Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 20/11/2003 06:50:41 PM:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 20 November 2003 04:34
> > To: Maven Developers List
> > Subject: Re: cvs commit: maven-plugins/caller/xdocs changes.xml
> > na
The following comment has been added to this issue:
Author: dion gillard
Created: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 9:24 AM
Body:
A patch would be great
-
View the issue:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=MAVEN-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Thursday, November 20, 2003 3:41 PM:
> "Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 20/11/2003 08:05:18
> PM:
>
>> I guess it all depends on the question of whether we wish to link POM
>> versions to Maven releases. I think, I'm being swayed and I agree
>> it's cleane
"Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 20/11/2003 07:38:18 PM:
> Hi dIon,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 20 November 2003 09:28
> > To: Maven Developers List
> > Subject: RE: [VOTE] Make groupId mandatory for POM version 4?
Message:
A new issue has been created in JIRA.
-
View the issue:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=MAVEN-1045
Here is an overview of the issue:
-
The following issue has been updated:
Updater: John Casey (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 9:02 AM
Comment:
This patch has been tested in my local environment against the most recent version of
maven from CVS HEAD, and works. The behavior I have implemented is to t
The following comment has been added to this issue:
Author: John Casey
Created: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 8:37 AM
Body:
Should we go ahead and fix the rest of the attributes in these two plugins? We could
specify the following in the jar plugin:
Specification-Title: ${pom.shortDescriptio
Some thoughts inline...
"Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 20/11/2003 07:58:41 PM:
[snip]
> Proposal 1:
>
> * Add the following to project.xml (this is an example):
>
>
> 1.0-rc1
> 1.0-rc2
> 1.0-rc3-SNAPSHOT
>
>
> Proposal 2:
>
> * Reuse the dependencies elements of project
"Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 20/11/2003 08:05:18 PM:
> I guess it all depends on the question of whether we wish to link POM
> versions to Maven releases. I think, I'm being swayed and I agree it's
> cleaner to link them
>
>
>
> Ok, I think I've realized what the problem is
Message:
A new issue has been created in JIRA.
-
View the issue:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=MAVEN-1044
Here is an overview of the issue:
-
"Ole Matzura" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 20/11/2003 11:55:18 PM:
> Hi!
>
> I've added som properties to the xdoc plugin (for hiding the banner
> and breadcrumbs).. how do I submit these to the maven-plugins
team/repository?
>
> sorry for being so blunt :-)
>
> thanks for any reply.. :-)
Cr
Hi!
I've added som properties to the xdoc plugin (for hiding the banner and breadcrumbs)..
how do I submit these to the maven-plugins team/repository?
sorry for being so blunt :-)
thanks for any reply.. :-)
/Ole
The following comment has been added to this issue:
Author: Martin Skopp
Created: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 5:51 AM
Body:
dion reported from his memory, the 'fix' broke 'sh' or cygwin or something.
Possible "$@" is not available in original bourne shell, so I suggest the following to
deter
vmassol 2003/11/20 02:25:56
Modified:dashboard/xdocs changes.xml
dashboard project.xml
Log:
prepare to work on 1.2 snapshot.
Revision ChangesPath
1.7 +3 -0 maven-plugins/dashboard/xdocs/changes.xml
Index: changes.xml
==
vmassol 2003/11/20 02:20:58
Modified:dashboard/xdocs aggregators.xml
Log:
Not needed anymore as it is done automatically by the plugin.
Revision ChangesPath
1.3 +0 -9 maven-plugins/dashboard/xdocs/aggregators.xml
Index: aggregators.xml
==
vmassol 2003/11/20 02:20:16
Modified:dashboard/xdocs navigation.xml
Log:
Preparing for release 1.1
Revision ChangesPath
1.4 +1 -0 maven-plugins/dashboard/xdocs/navigation.xml
Index: navigation.xml
=
vmassol 2003/11/20 02:17:55
Added: dashboard/announcements 1.1.ann
Log:
Preparing for release 1.1
Revision ChangesPath
1.1 maven-plugins/dashboard/announcements/1.1.ann
Index: 1.1.ann
==
vmassol 2003/11/20 02:16:11
Modified:dashboard/xdocs changes.xml
dashboard project.xml
Log:
Preparing for release 1.1
Revision ChangesPath
1.6 +1 -1 maven-plugins/dashboard/xdocs/changes.xml
Index: changes.xml
=
I guess it all depends on the question of whether we wish to link POM
versions to Maven releases. I think, I'm being swayed and I agree it's
cleaner to link them
Ok, I think I've realized what the problem is: We are developing 1.0-RC1
on HEAD. This is the main problem. Normally here's how I
As requested by dIon here's a summary of the 2 proposals we have for
introducing compatibility definition in the POM for plugins (i.e. what
version of Maven a given plugin is compatible with).
Proposal 1:
* Add the following to project.xml (this is an example):
1.0-rc1
1.0-rc2
1.0-rc3-SNA
Hi dIon,
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 20 November 2003 09:28
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] Make groupId mandatory for POM version 4?
>
> I *really* don't wont a POM change between an RC and a 1.0 release.
It's not a
I've updated the wiki with some discussion on .
But I'd much prefer we do it here instead.
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/
"Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 20/11/2003 07:04:25 PM:
> Actually, that's not exactly true. I have a
I *really* don't wont a POM change between an RC and a 1.0 release.
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/
"Vincent Massol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 20/11/2003 07:04:25 PM:
> Actually, that's not exactly true. I have already put POM v4 stuff
The following comment has been added to this issue:
Author: Stephen McConnell
Created: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 2:12 AM
Body:
Setting the project properties works fine for the declaration of the spec-version and
vendor-id.
Example:
---
Actually, that's not exactly true. I have already put POM v4 stuff in
CVS. However, it's completely transparent to POM3 users and I do agree
that we must provide 100% POM3 compatibility for 1.0.
Here's what I would like to do. Please provide input on whether you
think it's acceptable or not.
1/ C
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 20 November 2003 04:34
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: cvs commit: maven-plugins/caller/xdocs changes.xml
> navigation.xml
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 17/11/2003 12:01:08 AM:
>
> > vmassol
Ok for Lead Developer. I've started modifying some and put myself as
Lead Developer (not committed yet). If others also want to be lead
developer on those project, feel free to tell me. I'll be happy to
change that. That said, I believe, there could be several lead
developers.
We'll still need to
dion2003/11/19 23:28:37
Modified:src/plugins-build/jar plugin.jelly
src/plugins-build/jar/xdocs/current changes.xml
Log:
Reorder Specification-Title/Vendor/Version and
Implementation-Title/Vendor/Version
Revision ChangesPath
1.26 +4 -4
dion2003/11/19 23:25:28
Modified:ejb project.xml plugin.jelly
ejb/xdocs changes.xml
Log:
Synchronize ejb and jar plugin usage of: Specification-Title/Vendor/Version
and Implementation-Title/Vendor/Version
Revision ChangesPath
1.15
The following comment has been added to this issue:
Author: dion gillard
Created: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:59 AM
Body:
jar plugin uses:
which looks ok
-
View the issue:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ViewIssue.
54 matches
Mail list logo
