anyone?
On 01/12/2006, at 11:29 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
I see a couple of models in continuum-webapp, which seem to be
partially used. Does anyone know if session-models is used any
more? What about view-models - only the summary parts still seem
valid?
- Brett
the release will be beta-4, but the version is maven-scm poms is actually
1.0-SNAPSHOT and I won't change them before the release. When I'll release,
I'll set the version to beta-4 and not 1.0.
The next version will be 1.0-SNAPSHOT. Hope it's clear now :)
Emmanuel
Dan Tran a écrit :
i am conf
i am confused here. beta-4 or 1.0?
-D
On 12/5/06, Emmanuel Venisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yes, it will be 1.0-beta-4, but actually, it's 1.0-SNAPSHOT.
Emmanuel
Dennis Lundberg a écrit :
> Did you mean for the version of Maven SCM to be 1.0-SNAPSHOT?
>
> Shouldn't that be 1.0-beta-4-SN
yes, it will be 1.0-beta-4, but actually, it's 1.0-SNAPSHOT.
Emmanuel
Dennis Lundberg a écrit :
Did you mean for the version of Maven SCM to be 1.0-SNAPSHOT?
Shouldn't that be 1.0-beta-4-SNAPSHOT judging by the messages on the
scm-dev list?
---
Steve Loughran wrote:
Ralph Goers wrote:
Steve Loughran wrote:
Simone Gianni wrote:
The thing to remember about WAR files is that they are a packaging
format that is intended to make it easy to deploy web apps. Not
distribute, but deploy. The old WAR/EAR use cases always had the
'assemb
Sure. For some reason I was thinking it was in maven core where I don't
have karma but that's just the pom that contains the url. I'll make the
change.
-Original Message-
From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 7:26 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subje
Man, this mailing list is way out in the boonies of my IMAP tree ...
Anyhoo, yes, the c-logging 1.1 upgrade was in response to a reported
problem with c-logging in #maven.
All commons-logging versions prior to 1.0.4 ... uhm ... lie/mislead the
user with their exception messages.
It was reported t
The convention has been package first for as long as I can
remember... but yeah, we should update the checkstyle header. Would
you be able to do that?
On 06/12/2006, at 11:40 AM, Brian E. Fox wrote:
I was going through some checkstyle errors in my code and noticed the
header hasn't been upd
I was going through some checkstyle errors in my code and noticed the
header hasn't been updated to match the new license. Also, isn't it
supposed to be at the top? The current version has package then license.
I'm taking a response to plexus-dev. Basically, +1.
On 06/12/2006, at 9:26 AM, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
ooh! Logging fight! logging fight! ;-)
(Jason and I argue about this constantly)
Paul Hammant's blog entry - http://paulhammant.com/blog/000241.html
He was railing on about...
* Instantiating
Just a note to explain:
I created the sandbox module "surefire-plugin-merge" to try merging
the two maven surefire plugins into the surefire codebase as
discussed before.
The reason it is not straight forward is that when the maven-surefire-
plugin is enabled is that maven detects a circular
Hi,
I was trying to come up with a description of what it
would take to make a repository really trustworthy.
As I was writing it I thought...didn't I see something
like this on the Maven site.
So here I am.
Anyways, I wrote the description in a cookbook format.
If this matches a subset of w
Ping.
(Joakim, are you on [EMAIL PROTECTED])
- Brett
On 22/11/2006, at 11:15 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
Did we ever fix the c-logging 1.1 POM, or do we need to add
exclusions here? Shouldn't this only be an -api reference anyway?
- Brett
On 22/11/2006, at 4:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aight... no worries, just checking.
--jason
On Dec 5, 2006, at 2:16 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
I've got 4 more days! :)
On 06/12/2006, at 9:12 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Ever get a chance?
--jason
On Dec 1, 2006, at 3:02 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
I'll look at it next week if nobody else gets t
Did you mean for the version of Maven SCM to be 1.0-SNAPSHOT?
Shouldn't that be 1.0-beta-4-SNAPSHOT judging by the messages on the
scm-dev list?
--
Dennis Lundberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: evenisse
Date: Tue Dec 5 06:37:46 2006
New Revision: 482676
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc
ooh! Logging fight! logging fight! ;-)
(Jason and I argue about this constantly)
Paul Hammant's blog entry - http://paulhammant.com/blog/000241.html
He was railing on about...
* Instantiating logging using IoC techniques.
* Using static logging in a component.
* Logging is mostly never read.
He
I've got 4 more days! :)
On 06/12/2006, at 9:12 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Ever get a chance?
--jason
On Dec 1, 2006, at 3:02 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
I'll look at it next week if nobody else gets to it first. Bit
crunched right now.
On 02/12/2006, at 6:18 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Anyone h
Ever get a chance?
--jason
On Dec 1, 2006, at 3:02 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
I'll look at it next week if nobody else gets to it first. Bit
crunched right now.
On 02/12/2006, at 6:18 AM, Jason Dillon wrote:
Anyone had some free cycles to look at the patch for this:
http://jira.codehau
I left this out on purpose. Is it really a good idea?
- Brett
On 06/12/2006, at 6:18 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: evenisse
Date: Tue Dec 5 11:18:34 2006
New Revision: 482744
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=482744
Log:
Add a default icon if company informations aren't s
If we're going to start making changes like this, can we nuke
tigris.* altogether and move to the standard xhtml template used by
the site plugin and archiva?
On 06/12/2006, at 6:18 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: evenisse
Date: Tue Dec 5 11:17:56 2006
New Revision: 482742
URL: http:
Hi...
On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 14:14 -0700, Wendy Smoak wrote:
> On 12/5/06, Kenney Westerhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A solution for this case would be to not allow any code in war projects;
> > everything that goes in /WEB-INF/classes
> > should just be in a dependency placed in /WEB-INF/
On 12/5/06, Kenney Westerhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A solution for this case would be to not allow any code in war projects;
everything that goes in /WEB-INF/classes
should just be in a dependency placed in /WEB-INF/lib.
This would be a pain for things like web framework example apps. (I
Just going to chip in my $0.02 here...I think this might be an excellent
point to start talking about "extension points" for maven plugins. These
would simply be custom phases for the plugin to execute while it's doing the
standard steps of a particular operation.
I've thought about this sort of
On 5 Dec 06, at 1:42 PM 5 Dec 06, Jim Crossley wrote:
Apologies if this is too off-topic, but...
On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 17:28 +, Steve Loughran wrote:
Because that's the kind of thing we can automate and lock down under
SCM. That lets us create a blank VMWare or Xen disk image, have it
Well,
I had to fudge it a little by adding a bogus
Boolean b to avoid signature conflict,
but it seems to works fine now. Here is the
convenience method:
protected Mojo lookupMojo(
String mojoArtifactId,
String mojoGroupId,
String mojoVersion
+1
On 12/5/06, Emmanuel Venisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi
I'd like to release 1.0-beta-4.
We have 41 issues fixed in it since April 2006, and lot of them fix some pb in
plugins that use Maven-SCM (release, changelog plugins and continuum)
+1 from me.
Emmanuel
--
I could give you my
Apologies if this is too off-topic, but...
On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 17:28 +, Steve Loughran wrote:
> Because that's the kind of thing we can automate and lock down under
> SCM. That lets us create a blank VMWare or Xen disk image, have it run a
> PXE preboot to get the base image, then after i
Hmmm,
Sorry - Not really a bug...but more of a convenience
lookup method request.
I reviewed lookupMojo, and if these was another one
like this I think everything would work out:
protected Mojo lookupMojo(
String mojoArtifactId,
String mojoGroupId,
Simone Gianni wrote:
Kenney Westerhof wrote:
The real problem is that people want an unpacked artifact, probably
since packaging
a war artifact is too slow (lots of dependencies copied, and zipping
up zips is slow).
More or less, in the parallel thread "Manipulating the WAR directory
before t
Kenney Westerhof wrote:
> The real problem is that people want an unpacked artifact, probably
> since packaging
> a war artifact is too slow (lots of dependencies copied, and zipping
> up zips is slow).
More or less, in the parallel thread "Manipulating the WAR directory
before the WAR file gets bu
Hi,
If I run the mojo tests in the same project that the
mojo is in, they run fine.
If I create another project with the same setup, but
different artifactId, I get the exception pasted at
the end (xml2spec.mojo.test is the new testing project
I created. It allows me to simulate how the mojo
wor
Steve Loughran wrote:
> The thing to remember about WAR files is that they are a packaging
> format that is intended to make it easy to deploy web apps. Not
> distribute, but deploy. The old WAR/EAR use cases always had the
> 'assembler' who would be some person who would somehow assemble WARs
> an
starteam provider + release plugin looks good.
Here is how I tested it:
- wipe out maven-scm local repo
- wipe out maven-release-manager-repo
- build maven-release-plugin-1.0-beta-5-SNAPSHOT
- run the release plugin against a starteam project tree
+1 on me
-D
On 12/5/06, Emmanuel Venisse
Ralph Goers wrote:
Steve Loughran wrote:
Simone Gianni wrote:
The thing to remember about WAR files is that they are a packaging
format that is intended to make it easy to deploy web apps. Not
distribute, but deploy. The old WAR/EAR use cases always had the
'assembler' who would be some pe
Dan,
The release plugin is updated we latest snapshots (and deployed) so you can
test it.
Emmanuel
Dan Tran a écrit :
I would like to have a 1.0-beta-4-SNAPSHOT deploy, then reference
maven-release-plugin
to use the beta-4-SNAPSHOT. This way I can test release plugin too.
-D
On 12/5/
cvs, svn, local and bazaar providers implement the TCK, so they are fine.
Starteam provider is tested by Dantran and the TCK is partially implemented.
Synergy provider is tested by Julien Henry
Clearcase provider is tested by Wim Deblauwe
Vss provider is tested by Martin Goldhahn in Continuum
Emm
I would like to have a 1.0-beta-4-SNAPSHOT deploy, then reference
maven-release-plugin
to use the beta-4-SNAPSHOT. This way I can test release plugin too.
-D
On 12/5/06, Mike Perham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I verified the release plugin and a few scm plugin operations worked
by hand for t
I verified the release plugin and a few scm plugin operations worked
by hand for the Perforce provider. I would like to hear confirmation
from others if they have time to compile the source and test it out
with Continuum, etc.
On 12/5/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Make sure we sy
On 5 Dec 06, at 10:28 AM 5 Dec 06, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
Hi
I'd like to release 1.0-beta-4.
We have 41 issues fixed in it since April 2006, and lot of them fix
some pb in plugins that use Maven-SCM (release, changelog plugins
and continuum)
+1 from me.
Make sure we sync up on the lic
Hi guys,
Is there any schema definition for the plugin.xml file?
--
*Maurício Linhares de Aragão Junior*
Estagiário
Avenida Rui Carneiro, 300, Sala 804
Miramar, João Pessoa-Pb, Brasil
CEP: 58032-100
+55 83 3243-0800
+1
On 12/5/06, Emmanuel Venisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi
I'd like to release 1.0-beta-4.
We have 41 issues fixed in it since April 2006, and lot of them fix some pb in
plugins that use Maven-SCM (release, changelog plugins and continuum)
+1 from me.
Here is my +1
Julien
Emmanuel Venisse a écrit :
Hi
I'd like to release 1.0-beta-4.
We have 41 issues fixed in it since April 2006, and lot of them fix
some pb in plugins that use Maven-SCM (release, changelog plugins and
continuum)
+1 from me.
Emmanuel
--
Hi
I'd like to release 1.0-beta-4.
We have 41 issues fixed in it since April 2006, and lot of them fix some pb in
plugins that use Maven-SCM (release, changelog plugins and continuum)
+1 from me.
Emmanuel
Steve Loughran wrote:
Simone Gianni wrote:
The thing to remember about WAR files is that they are a packaging
format that is intended to make it easy to deploy web apps. Not
distribute, but deploy. The old WAR/EAR use cases always had the
'assembler' who would be some person who would someh
Simone Gianni wrote:
Stephane Nicoll wrote:
Yes, I've seen this thread as well. Sounds good to me even if we need
strong
use cases to create a new standard phase.
Basic use cases I've seen so far, applied to the WAR problem :
- Cocoon team developed a plugin that deploys its blocks inside a wa
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 4 Dec 06, at 9:59 AM 4 Dec 06, Ralph Goers wrote:
Richard,
I love this idea and hate it at the same time. The idea of using
numbers, as I'm sure has been pointed out before, just seems awful.
But I understand what you are driving at. If there was a way to
register
Hi,
Some ramblings, trying to analyze a use-case and finding a solution without
modifying the lifecycle:
Michael Horwitz wrote:
Hi,
As a side note it strikes me that the primary problem is that the war:war
goal does a little too much in a single go during the packaging phase.
Could
the issue
47 matches
Mail list logo
