Thanks,
I was, but I had problems with the embedder. It had bugs and I could not use
it to call maven archetype goals with parameters and I got a code snippet
that should work, only it depends on the 2.1 version I will try
again.
Jesse McConnell wrote:
>
> your better bet is to pull
On 23 Dec 06, at 5:39 PM 23 Dec 06, Brett Porter wrote:
On 24/12/2006, at 2:31 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 22 Dec 06, at 11:18 PM 22 Dec 06, Brett Porter wrote:
Hi,
I was pretty confused by the state of the plugin process, and
just wanted to check:
- should the "remote resources" plugi
On 24/12/2006, at 2:34 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I have a proposal for maven-artifact that I'll work on with Kenney
which will complement his versioning proposal.
How do I get involved? I kind of feel like this is unfinished
business for me, so I'd like to participate. I have a bunch of
If it's backwards compatible, then there should be no problem with
just replacing the current algorithm with this one in 2.1.
I think the other points will certainly need to be addressed before
any other maven-artifact work.
Cheers,
Brett
On 24/12/2006, at 8:54 AM, Kenney Westerhof wrote:
On 24/12/2006, at 2:00 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
- build status report (for developers, from Continuum, things that
need immediate attention like broken build, failing tests, failing
ITs, failing checks)
This report is strictly a record of something that is ready to
release. Once all the
On 24/12/2006, at 2:31 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 22 Dec 06, at 11:18 PM 22 Dec 06, Brett Porter wrote:
Hi,
I was pretty confused by the state of the plugin process, and just
wanted to check:
- should the "remote resources" plugin be in the main
configuration, rather than profiles? It
FYI, I've created a Wiki page under the Maven 2.1 design documents describing
the proposal:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Versioning
FWIW,I think '1.0-alpha10' being treated as older than 1.0-alpha2 is a bug, and
doesn't
warrant a pom version change.
The only incompatibility, aside
On 23 Dec 06, at 4:39 PM 23 Dec 06, Brett Porter wrote:
Maybe I put the comment there and didn't realise - I thought it was
yours. At the top it said to replace it with a generic converter
component, which is what the other one seemed to be. It wasn't
adding anything.
I don't necessarily
Maybe I put the comment there and didn't realise - I thought it was
yours. At the top it said to replace it with a generic converter
component, which is what the other one seemed to be. It wasn't adding
anything.
I don't necessarily agree with the one entry point to rule them all.
The fir
your better bet is to pull from
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/components/branches/maven-2.0.x
As that is there the next release is being worked on. it was decided
to do a couple more 2.0.X releases before committing to new 2.1
features. In fact my bet is that the 2.0.x branch will be h
Hi all,
I am trying to build maven 2.1 from repository (from scratch) to no success.
I have added the profiles to the settings.xml according to
http://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-plugin-snapshot-repositories.html
but it does not help.
Attached please find the error.
Thanks in
Hi,
Voting for PMC members should happen here, and we have often had a
sounding board for new people on projects here but the votes should
be open and on the dev list. The vote going up for commit privs
should be done in the open.
Jason.
--
+1
Stéphane
On 12/23/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please vote on maven-plugin-plugin and maven-plugin-tools-2.0.x:
- svn rev. 489850
- plugin snapshot is 2.2-20061223.040931-3, plugin-tools snapshot is
2.0.5-20061223.041242-4
- documentation already updated at http://maven.apa
On 22 Dec 06, at 5:07 PM 22 Dec 06, Brett Porter wrote:
At first blush this seems good. I haven't looked in detail.
We have some key things to put in place first though (not in this
order).
a) support for selection of alternate versioning
b) since it's not backwards compatible, we need to
On 22 Dec 06, at 11:18 PM 22 Dec 06, Brett Porter wrote:
Hi,
I was pretty confused by the state of the plugin process, and just
wanted to check:
- should the "remote resources" plugin be in the main
configuration, rather than profiles? It makes sense for all plugin
deployments to have th
On 22 Dec 06, at 5:13 PM 22 Dec 06, John Tolentino wrote:
Here's version 2:
I would still put the issues resolved on the top, I think that's what
people looking at new releases want to see first. "Was my issue
fixed?" is what they are asking.
Jason.
http://people.apache.org/~jtolenti
On 22 Dec 06, at 4:48 PM 22 Dec 06, Brett Porter wrote:
On 23/12/2006, at 9:13 AM, John Tolentino wrote:
The vote is an indicator that we're prioritizing what the community
needs/wants to get fixed. I think this would be of interest for those
making a vote for the release, if the issues the
On 23 Dec 06, at 2:03 AM 23 Dec 06, Stephane Nicoll wrote:
Tagging the sources with a standardized scheme and use it would be the
best for CVS I think.
Ultimately we decide what tool is helping with the release, the API
created for making releases must shape this information in a standard
On 22 Dec 06, at 5:28 PM 22 Dec 06, John Tolentino wrote:
I see. So if a project is using CVS, they have to rely on their
process having to tag a revision first. I used the revision on the
checkout instructions in the mock reports, but like you said, this is
only applicable to SVN.
No, you c
On 22 Dec 06, at 10:03 PM 22 Dec 06, Craig McClanahan wrote:
On 12/22/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/22/06, Dan Fabulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Kenney Westerhof [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > If I understand correctly, the problem is that a 'staged' release
On 22 Dec 06, at 9:45 PM 22 Dec 06, Wendy Smoak wrote:
On 12/22/06, Dan Fabulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Kenney Westerhof [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> If I understand correctly, the problem is that a 'staged' release
> still contains a SNAPSHOT keyword in the metadata/filename?
Y
On 12/22/06, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Steve Loughran wrote:
>> Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>>> Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 19 Dec 06, at 12:28 PM 19 Dec 06, Steve Loughran wrote:
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Just checking in with fol
On 12/23/06, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/22/06, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 12/22/06, Dan Fabulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > From: Kenney Westerhof [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > If I understand correctly, the problem is that a 'staged' rele
+1
fabrizio
On 12/23/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please vote on maven-plugin-plugin and maven-plugin-tools-2.0.x:
- svn rev. 489850
- plugin snapshot is 2.2-20061223.040931-3, plugin-tools snapshot is
2.0.5-20061223.041242-4
- documentation already updated at http://maven.apac
Tagging the sources with a standardized scheme and use it would be the
best for CVS I think.
Stéphane
On 12/23/06, John Tolentino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I see. So if a project is using CVS, they have to rely on their
process having to tag a revision first. I used the revision on the
checkou
25 matches
Mail list logo
