Sounds good.
On 12/02/2007, at 5:59 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
I would like to move the maven-artifact-ant code out of the
components to give them a separate life. They are largely dependent
on maven-artifact, but that's in and they have a lot of code that
is ant specific and releases
Yes, for the application of our company, we hope to release different modules
with different version. Could we do any modification to the source code of
Maven release-plugin? What suggestion about that?
Maggie
>>> Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2/12/2007 12:52 AM >>>
On 12 Feb 07, at 1:04
Hi,
I would like to move the maven-artifact-ant code out of the
components to give them a separate life. They are largely dependent
on maven-artifact, but that's in and they have a lot of code that is
ant specific and releases may, in fact, be required more frequently
due to change in the
On 12 Feb 07, at 1:04 AM 12 Feb 07, Barrie Treloar wrote:
On 2/12/07, Guijie (Maggie) Ma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But if there are more than one module and there are dependency
between, the change of one module can lead the version changes of
other modules. The change rule of version num
Thank you for your reply. I see.
Maggie
>>> Edwin Punzalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2/11/2007 11:53 PM >>>
unfortunately, you can't. If in continuum, the user is prompted for all
the versions.
What the plugin does however is suggest a default, which is what it
currently does. Of course, the defa
Thanks for the info... seems to be okay so far, build works with
2.0.4 and 2.0.5, will soon run the TCK on the 2.0.5 build to see if
that shows any dependency related failures, but overall it looks good.
There are still a few big issues which we are working around in the G
builds which I ho
On 11 Feb 07, at 11:59 PM 11 Feb 07, Jason Dillon wrote:
Are there release notes on the major changes or significant fixes
which we might need to adapt to and/or be able to remove local
build hacks? The JIRA road map is kinda hard to scrape the
relevant details from.
The only thing in
well although this about Maven and modules *may* be true, the release
plugin can release the modules with a different versions than what is
declared in the parent. That's why the release plugin prompts for the
release/dev versions even though the project will inherit them. If you
specified
On 2/12/07, Guijie (Maggie) Ma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But if there are more than one module and there are dependency between, the
change of one module can lead the version changes of other modules. The change
rule of version number should be different, not all be updated from
0.5.0-SNAPSH
Seems to work fine for Geronimo trunk (2.0) and 1.2 builds...
+1
--jason
On Feb 11, 2007, at 8:33 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
The assemblies that people are interested in are staged here:
http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/staging-repository/org/apache/
maven/maven-core/2.0.5/
Here is t
unfortunately, you can't. If in continuum, the user is prompted for all
the versions.
What the plugin does however is suggest a default, which is what it
currently does. Of course, the default isn't always appropriate for all
cases, but generally it should suffice.
If you want a new algo
It would really be nice if there was more control over what WARNING
messages that Maven spits out by default. When building off of a
clean repo, a bunch of '[WARNING] Unable to get resource ...'
messages litter the console output... which really makes it hard to
see what is actually going
But if there are more than one module and there are dependency between, the
change of one module can lead the version changes of other modules. The change
rule of version number should be different, not all be updated from
0.5.0-SNAPSHOT to 0.5.1-SNAPSHOT, maybe from 0.5.0-SNAPSHOT to 0.6.0-SNA
On 2/12/07, Guijie (Maggie) Ma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you think it is more convenient if the release plugin can deal with the
revision number automatically?
I have attached the snapshot of the release-prepare.
The attached snapshot was cut by the list.
I am successfully using the rel
Are there release notes on the major changes or significant fixes
which we might need to adapt to and/or be able to remove local build
hacks? The JIRA road map is kinda hard to scrape the relevant
details from.
--jason
On Feb 11, 2007, at 8:33 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
The assembli
I mean the release versions and development versions should be input manually
now. I want to know if I want the release-plugin to create the version number
automatically, what could we do?
Thank you!
Maggie
>>> Edwin Punzalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2/11/2007 10:03 PM >>>
What do you mean?
Curre
Hi,
The assemblies that people are interested in are staged here:
http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/staging-repository/org/apache/maven/
maven-core/2.0.5/
Here is the JIRA roadmap:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?
reset=true&&pid=10500&fixfor=12294&sorter/field=issuekey&
What do you mean?
Currently, it removes the SNAPSHOT for released versions and increments
with a SNAPSHOT version for development versions.
That's not enough?
Guijie (Maggie) Ma wrote:
Do you think it is more convenient if the release plugin can deal with the
revision number automatical
Do you think it is more convenient if the release plugin can deal with the
revision number automatically?
I have attached the snapshot of the release-prepare.
Thanks!
Maggie
>>> Edwin Punzalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2/11/2007 8:05 PM >>>
I don't think there will be any problems if you put in
I don't think there will be any problems if you put in the configuration
all the versions you will want to use. Continuum have a similar process
too, it prompts the user for all the required information before the
actual release begins. And then sends the release and development
versions to
Hello Edwin,
Thank you for your reply. In the project release for creating the Dev tag,the
release prepare process will prompt you for the revision to be used for the new
Dev tag, and for Trunk. You know the release-plugin can't define the correct
version number, so we must have the correct ver
Hi Jason,
Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After looking at MNG-2794 I don't think it's something we should fix
> change.
>
> The 2.0.4 release was working in a way contrary to our documentation
> in that the nearest with 2.0.4 was not being selected and it is with
> 2.0.5. So we either fix it an
+1
Yep, i guess this is going to become a FAQ on the list and on IRC :-)
Rahul
Brett Porter wrote:
Sounds right to me. Needs something mentioned in the
announcement/release notes, though.
- Brett
On 12/02/2007, at 9:25 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
After looking at MNG-2794 I don't thin
Yup, I agree.
but still the case where 2 matches are equally near should be solved;
I think atm. this is either random or first/last-encountered-wins; this
should be latest (so nearest wins, if equal distance then fallback to latest).
But this could go in at 2.0.6 IMHO.
-- Kenney
Brett Porter
Sounds right to me. Needs something mentioned in the announcement/
release notes, though.
- Brett
On 12/02/2007, at 9:25 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
After looking at MNG-2794 I don't think it's something we should
fix change.
The 2.0.4 release was working in a way contrary to our
docu
This seems to have been more than just that revision, since it's
reverted the license header too.
On 12/02/2007, at 6:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jvanzyl
Date: Sun Feb 11 11:53:21 2007
New Revision: 506109
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=506109
Log:
MNG-2820 from t
What about using fileutils.copyFile?
- Brett
On 12/02/2007, at 6:52 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jvanzyl
Date: Sun Feb 11 11:52:44 2007
New Revision: 506108
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=506108
Log:
MNG-2820 Leave the POM intact which means no interpolating and no
l
Hi,
After looking at MNG-2794 I don't think it's something we should fix
change.
The 2.0.4 release was working in a way contrary to our documentation
in that the nearest with 2.0.4 was not being selected and it is with
2.0.5. So we either fix it and then it conflicts with what we
docume
Done.
Cheers,
Stéphane
On 2/11/07, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Looks like the release plugin is still removing the license header
from the pom. I *think* it will stay there if you put it inside the
tag instead of above it.
In any case, it needs to be added back in svn.
Thanks,
--
On 11 Feb 07, at 12:28 PM 11 Feb 07, Vincent Siveton wrote:
The Xml declaration was missing initially.
It seems that the release plugin doesn't handle as well the XML
processing instruction.
It's not the release plugin it's the ProjectArtifactMetadata which is
rewriting the POM on deployme
---
T E S T S
---
Running org.apache.maven.archiva.configuration.MavenProxyPropertyLoaderTest
Tests run: 2, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.547 sec
Running org.apache.maven.a
The Xml declaration was missing initially.
It seems that the release plugin doesn't handle as well the XML
processing instruction.
Cheers,
Vincent
2007/2/11, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Looks like the release plugin is still removing the license header
from the pom. I *think* it will sta
Looks like the release plugin is still removing the license header
from the pom. I *think* it will stay there if you put it inside the
tag instead of above it.
In any case, it needs to be added back in svn.
Thanks,
--
Wendy
On 2/11/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Author: sni
+1
Thanks Stephane,
Jason.
On 11 Feb 07, at 5:11 AM 11 Feb 07, Stephane Nicoll wrote:
Hi,
This release fixes all known issues.
Release Notes - Maven 2.x Sources Plugin - Version 2.0.3
** Bug
* [MSOURCES-6] - Sources plugin ignores resource includes/excludes
** Improvement
* [MSOURCE
On 2/11/07, Stephane Nicoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On 2/11/07, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All the issue tickets for the maven sources plugin are resolved:
>
>http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MSOURCES
>
> Is there likely to be a 2.0.3 release soon?
>
Yes, I'll handle
What is it that you want the release-plugin to do? If you just want to
specify a different version than what is recommended by the plugin when
it prompts them, then it should be safe to do without any problems.
^_^
Guijie (Maggie) Ma wrote:
Hi,
I'm a user of Maven and Maven is very goo
Hi,
This release fixes all known issues.
Release Notes - Maven 2.x Sources Plugin - Version 2.0.3
** Bug
* [MSOURCES-6] - Sources plugin ignores resource includes/excludes
** Improvement
* [MSOURCES-11] - When source plugin is used, it should make sure
it is invoked during install
Revis
Hi,
On 2/11/07, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All the issue tickets for the maven sources plugin are resolved:
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MSOURCES
Is there likely to be a 2.0.3 release soon?
Yes, I'll handle this.
Cheers,
Stéphane
thx
Niall
38 matches
Mail list logo
