I did some further investigation. While there may be a memory leak,
it could well be a case of it always having been there so that is
worth separate investigation. I did hook yourkit up to it and didn't
see anything in particular that might be a culprit.
However, the reason I'm seeing the p
No dice :( I made sure to delete the copy from my local repo so it
was downloaded again.
I checked the build order, and you were right - the CCE blew it up
before it got to the problem spot.
I'll try and come up with a test case for you.
- Brett
On 31/03/2007, at 2:32 AM, John Casey wrote
On Mar 29, 2007, at 6:19 PM, Jeff Jensen wrote:
Just not understanding yet the Maven
plans for wiki/site usage. My fear, obviously, is continued
"separate"
works, as some people I helped with Maven have a "not happy-out-of-
the-box
experience", which includes scattered docs - I always have
I'm ok for a timestamped version, but we can release the release manager too,
without the plugin because it isn't ready and I want the new Maven-SCM in it.
The pb is that release-manager use maven-scm 1.0-SNAPSHOT, we can use 1.0-beta-4 because the release manager doesn't use new code of maven-s
with maven-app-configuration released I thought we were well on our
way to getting a release of continuum cut, but Emmanuel pointed out
that I had missing the latest SNAPSHOT of the maven release stuff.
Does anyone have an issues with my resolving the maven-release version
to the latest timestamp
passed with 6 binding (jmcconnell, bporter, oching, evenisse, jdcasey,
and jerdfelt)
I'll copy these out and get the continuum alpha 1 release prepared for a vote
jesse
On 3/28/07, Jesse McConnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
ok, I redid the release using the parent version of 7 so if its ok
wit
There are some issues with autoexport, you guys might want to take a
peek at the HokeyPokey's exportspace command:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/sandbox/hokeypokey/trunk/
Its still a work in progress, but it basically exports a space via
xmlrpc and applies a velocity template
On 30 Mar 07, at 3:06 PM 30 Mar 07, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
Jason van Zyl a écrit :
On 30 Mar 07, at 10:49 AM 30 Mar 07, Brett Porter wrote:
While you make plenty of valid points about Contegix, it's
completely unrelated to what I'm arguing for.
How is starting to move things away from Con
Jason van Zyl a écrit :
On 30 Mar 07, at 10:49 AM 30 Mar 07, Brett Porter wrote:
While you make plenty of valid points about Contegix, it's completely
unrelated to what I'm arguing for.
How is starting to move things away from Contegix, which is you
suggestion, not related? The subsequent
On 21 Mar 2007, at 07:04, Stephane Nicoll wrote:
Hi,
On 3/21/07, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Will the use of this new overlay cause the transitive dependencies
of the overlayed wars to be resolved and included? I currently
construct wars that I intend to be used as overlays by
I thought that the Maven version parsing takes the -xx as a build
number? I'm internally reformatting the jdk version into something that
Maven understands.
-Original Message-
From: Jerome Lacoste [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 1:11 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Su
On 3/30/07, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I know what changed, but not why it's broken yet. I changed the Java
rule a little to support the build number of java instead of just 3
digits like before. The parsing is correct according to the unit tests,
but perhaps the version ranging isn'
Unfortunately, it wasn't that simple. I had actually combined two merges in
a single commit to the beta-1 tag...a no-no, I know, but it's fixed now.
I've put the newest deployment that excludes MASSEMBLY-155 out on my
people.a.o acct, for your perusal.
Let me know what you find out, and thanks fo
On 30 Mar 07, at 12:16 PM 30 Mar 07, Emmanuel Venisse wrote:
Jason van Zyl a écrit :
On 30 Mar 07, at 10:33 AM 30 Mar 07, Brett Porter wrote:
Two problems have been found:
- the maven root POM contains '2.0.6-SNAPSHOT' as the
maven.version, which will probably filter in incorrectly and h
On 30 Mar 07, at 10:49 AM 30 Mar 07, Brett Porter wrote:
While you make plenty of valid points about Contegix, it's
completely unrelated to what I'm arguing for.
How is starting to move things away from Contegix, which is you
suggestion, not related? The subsequent argument would then be m
Jason van Zyl a écrit :
On 30 Mar 07, at 10:33 AM 30 Mar 07, Brett Porter wrote:
Two problems have been found:
- the maven root POM contains '2.0.6-SNAPSHOT' as the maven.version,
which will probably filter in incorrectly and hose any transitive
dependencies. That'll need to be fixed.
On 30 Mar 07, at 10:33 AM 30 Mar 07, Brett Porter wrote:
Two problems have been found:
- the maven root POM contains '2.0.6-SNAPSHOT' as the
maven.version, which will probably filter in incorrectly and hose
any transitive dependencies. That'll need to be fixed.
That's fixed, I didn't n
Woo Hoo! Another binding voter!:-)
Congrats!
Dan
On Thursday 29 March 2007 21:21, Brett Porter wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The Maven PMC has voted to add Brian Fox to the PMC. Please
> join me in welcoming him!
>
> Cheers,
> Brett
>
> --
On 30 Mar 07, at 10:41 AM 30 Mar 07, Brett Porter wrote:
On 31/03/2007, at 12:09 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
This would not be a concept change in Maven (at least, yet - it
could be something to consider in the versioning in future): it's
simply two types of release repositories. The stable
Not entirely sure I agree with this point. Another level of
complexity to get round this issue?
surely if folk have any problems they can use dependencyManagement
and pluginManagement to solve
the same issue?
I know plenty of folk who barely know why to separate snapshot from
release repos
On 31/03/2007, at 12:43 AM, John Casey wrote:
I'll try rolling out the MASSEMBLY-155 fix, just to see if that
makes a
difference. I can't imagine the ClassCastException fix or the file-
mode
processing chewing up much, though.
Brett: Is it possible that you weren't running out of memory
p
While you make plenty of valid points about Contegix, it's completely
unrelated to what I'm arguing for. If you are successful in bringing
them in to the ASF infrastructure as you've proposed, it should be a
no-brainer to move a cwiki space to that infrastructure. So that's a
non-issue as f
I'll try rolling out the MASSEMBLY-155 fix, just to see if that makes a
difference. I can't imagine the ClassCastException fix or the file-mode
processing chewing up much, though.
Brett: Is it possible that you weren't running out of memory previously
*because* of the CCE?
-john
On 3/30/07, Bri
On 31/03/2007, at 12:09 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
This would not be a concept change in Maven (at least, yet - it
could be something to consider in the versioning in future): it's
simply two types of release repositories. The stable one would be
included in Maven by default, the unstable/pr
Two problems have been found:
- the maven root POM contains '2.0.6-SNAPSHOT' as the maven.version,
which will probably filter in incorrectly and hose any transitive
dependencies. That'll need to be fixed.
- as pointed out on IRC earlier, the plexus container used in this
release was not p
On 28 Mar 07, at 5:22 PM 28 Mar 07, Brett Porter wrote:
(moving to main dev list as scope has increased)
On 29/03/2007, at 12:28 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Similar to what Emmanuel suggested, how about we move *all* the
current spaces to cwiki, avoiding any further fragmentation, and in
fact
Jason said:
I'm far more in favor of hosting a default snapshot repository on
central and forcing plugin versions in 2.1. This creates far more
stability and puts the onus on us to make finding that version for first
time use easy. Not specifying a version for a plugin is not predictable
as clear
On 28 Mar 07, at 7:46 PM 28 Mar 07, Brett Porter wrote:
Hi,
I didn't want to pin the assembly plugin vote to this, but it
seemed like a good opportunity to bring this up.
I'd like to propose we split the stable repository from the
unstable repository (which would be where alphas, betas a
I imagine the fix for MASSEMBLY-155 might cause the archiver to use a
little more memory. I would imagine though that if the excludes weren't
used, the fix wouldn't have an impact.
-Original Message-
From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 1:36 AM
To: Mav
I know what changed, but not why it's broken yet. I changed the Java
rule a little to support the build number of java instead of just 3
digits like before. The parsing is correct according to the unit tests,
but perhaps the version ranging isn't doing what I think.
-Original Message-
Fro
30 matches
Mail list logo
