On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I created a "Documentation" version so that
technical issues wouldn't be polluted by documentation issues.
Documentation is neither a version nor pollution. :)
--
Wendy
-
On 14 Jun 07, at 10:28 PM 14 Jun 07, Brett Porter wrote:
Heh, my mail was trying to tell me something as it rejected a
message asking about these at the same time this arrived :)
MPA-90 and 91 came up to the top of my iGTD box today and I was
going to work on them this afternoon - but noti
Heh, my mail was trying to tell me something as it rejected a message
asking about these at the same time this arrived :)
MPA-90 and 91 came up to the top of my iGTD box today and I was going
to work on them this afternoon - but noticed things had been changed.
This sounds good to me, and I
Hi,
The 2.0.7 release will go out tomorrow, and in order to get some
decent vote feedback it would be good to clean up JIRA so that we
have an accurate 2.0.x list people can vote on for issues they would
like fixed in 2.0.8. I created a "Documentation" version so that
technical issues wou
On 15/06/2007, at 3:02 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 14 Jun 07, at 9:33 PM 14 Jun 07, Brett Porter wrote:
Hi,
Took a look at this, and I see the shade plugin JIRA was created
with the maven defaults for notifications and permissions, not
mojos where it currently lives in the sandbox.
On 14 Jun 07, at 9:33 PM 14 Jun 07, Brett Porter wrote:
Hi,
Took a look at this, and I see the shade plugin JIRA was created
with the maven defaults for notifications and permissions, not
mojos where it currently lives in the sandbox.
That was my ruby script for creating projects that
Hi,
Took a look at this, and I see the shade plugin JIRA was created with
the maven defaults for notifications and permissions, not mojos where
it currently lives in the sandbox.
Is the intent to move it into this project, or was the JIRA project
created incorrectly?
Given it is a requi
On 15/06/2007, at 12:03 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 14 Jun 07, at 5:58 AM 14 Jun 07, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
-1 (conditional)
evoking the spirit of dkulp ...
1) The embedded maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar has bad LICENSE.txt and
NOTICE.txt files.
1a) The LICENSE.txt at the root of the maven-cor
On 6/14/07, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
this was incorrectly closed as fixed instead of incomplete
Fixed. :)
--
Wendy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTE
this was incorrectly closed as fixed instead of incomplete
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl (JIRA) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3052?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jason van Zyl closed MNG-3052.
--
All done for 2.0.8-SNAPSHOT and 2.1-SNAPSHOT.
- Brett
On 15/06/2007, at 12:10 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 15/06/2007, at 11:45 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I'll try adding it to the POM under a release profile.
If you're going to add it to the POM make sure you:
- export the tag
- take the
Issue Subscription
Filter: Design & Best Practices (32 issues)
Subscriber: mavendevlist
Key Summary
MNG-2184Possible problem with @aggregator and forked lifecycles
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-2184
MNG-612 implement conflict resolution techniques
htt
On 15/06/2007, at 11:45 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I'll try adding it to the POM under a release profile.
If you're going to add it to the POM make sure you:
- export the tag
- take the whole thing in it's entirety so someone could actually
build the release
- use the same licenses
- int
On 14 Jun 07, at 5:39 PM 14 Jun 07, Brett Porter wrote:
this is open source. cutting source releases means that the
source for a
release will always be available.
I agree, we should definitely be producing a source tarball that is
signed and voted on. I fully admit to being slack in the f
On 14 Jun 07, at 2:32 PM 14 Jun 07, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Jason van Zyl ha scritto:
On 14 Jun 07, at 10:36 AM 14 Jun 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
I'm not talking about what our users do, I'm talking about what the
ASF policy seems to be
Ask five people and you'll get five different answers
this is open source. cutting source releases means that the source
for a
release will always be available.
I agree, we should definitely be producing a source tarball that is
signed and voted on. I fully admit to being slack in the first few
releases, but we had them for 2.0.3, 2.0.4 and 2
I'm getting the below error when i do a maven dist:build-bin; please help.
Thanks
-B
maven dist:build-bin
__ __
| \/ |__ _Apache__ ___
| |\/| / _` \ V / -_) ' \ ~ intelligent projects ~
|_| |_\__,_|\_/\___|_||_| v. 1.0.2
Tag library requested that is not present: 'maven' in plugin: 'null'
Jason van Zyl ha scritto:
>
> On 14 Jun 07, at 10:36 AM 14 Jun 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>
>> I'm not talking about what our users do, I'm talking about what the
>> ASF policy seems to be
>>
>
> Ask five people and you'll get five different answers.
>
> Bottom line is who cares, I'll keep adapt
Jason van Zyl ha scritto:
>
> On 14 Jun 07, at 10:36 AM 14 Jun 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>
>> I'm not talking about what our users do, I'm talking about what the
>> ASF policy seems to be
>>
>
> Ask five people and you'll get five different answers.
>
> Bottom line is who cares, I'll keep adapt
On 14 Jun 07, at 10:34 AM 14 Jun 07, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 14 Jun 07, at 9:39 AM 14 Jun 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> that's what I understood too, source release is mandatory and
> binary optional
>
This is a throwback to HTTPD
On 14 Jun 07, at 10:36 AM 14 Jun 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
I'm not talking about what our users do, I'm talking about what the
ASF policy seems to be
Ask five people and you'll get five different answers.
Bottom line is who cares, I'll keep adapting to what people think is
necessary and w
Jason van Zyl ha scritto:
>
> On 14 Jun 07, at 9:34 AM 14 Jun 07, Wendy Smoak wrote:
>
>> On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Took me a few minutes so it doesn't hurt, I just exported the tag,
>>> zipped it up, signed, and checksummed it:
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~
Jason van Zyl ha scritto:
>
> On 14 Jun 07, at 9:37 AM 14 Jun 07, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
>> Wendy Smoak ha scritto:
>>> On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Took me a few minutes so it doesn't hurt, I just exported the tag,
zipped it up, signed, and checksummed it:
I'm not talking about what our users do, I'm talking about what the
ASF policy seems to be
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 14 Jun 07, at 9:39 AM 14 Jun 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> that's what I understood too, source release is mandatory and
> binary optional
>
This is
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 14 Jun 07, at 9:39 AM 14 Jun 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> that's what I understood too, source release is mandatory and
> binary optional
>
This is a throwback to HTTPD where a source distribution made more
sense because of platform issue
On 14 Jun 07, at 9:39 AM 14 Jun 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
that's what I understood too, source release is mandatory and
binary optional
This is a throwback to HTTPD where a source distribution made more
sense because of platform issues. I'm willing to bet 99.% of
users don't build
On 14 Jun 07, at 9:34 AM 14 Jun 07, Wendy Smoak wrote:
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Took me a few minutes so it doesn't hurt, I just exported the tag,
zipped it up, signed, and checksummed it:
http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/maven-2.0.7/
Thanks. Almost there... i
On 14 Jun 07, at 9:37 AM 14 Jun 07, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Wendy Smoak ha scritto:
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Took me a few minutes so it doesn't hurt, I just exported the tag,
zipped it up, signed, and checksummed it:
http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/maven-2.0.7/
Wendy Smoak ha scritto:
> On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Took me a few minutes so it doesn't hurt, I just exported the tag,
>> zipped it up, signed, and checksummed it:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/maven-2.0.7/
>
> Thanks. Almost there... it needs LICENSE an
that's what I understood too, source release is mandatory and binary optional
On 6/14/07, Wendy Smoak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We've never had one, but I can certainly make one by exporting the
> tag and zipping it up. All the source arch
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Took me a few minutes so it doesn't hurt, I just exported the tag,
zipped it up, signed, and checksummed it:
http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/maven-2.0.7/
Thanks. Almost there... it needs LICENSE and NOTICE added. :)
I have a note to ad
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We've never had one, but I can certainly make one by exporting the
tag and zipping it up. All the source archives to date are simply the
source as record, they don't include anything in there to build them.
I don't think this is useful at all
Jason van Zyl ha scritto:
>
> On 14 Jun 07, at 8:31 AM 14 Jun 07, Brian E. Fox wrote:
>
>> I'm no lawyer, but since the tag is publicly available from SVN, why
>> wouldn't that be sufficient? It would be convenient for some I suppose,
>> but I doubt it's a requirement.
>
> Took me a few minutes
On 14 Jun 07, at 8:31 AM 14 Jun 07, Brian E. Fox wrote:
I'm no lawyer, but since the tag is publicly available from SVN, why
wouldn't that be sufficient? It would be convenient for some I
suppose,
but I doubt it's a requirement.
Took me a few minutes so it doesn't hurt, I just exported the
Brian E. Fox ha scritto:
> I'm no lawyer, but since the tag is publicly available from SVN, why
> wouldn't that be sufficient? It would be convenient for some I suppose,
> but I doubt it's a requirement.
AFAIK if you don't release the source code in a package with LICENSE and
NOTICE file then no o
I'm no lawyer, but since the tag is publicly available from SVN, why
wouldn't that be sufficient? It would be convenient for some I suppose,
but I doubt it's a requirement.
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 11:19 AM
To: Maven De
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 14 Jun 07, at 7:14 AM 14 Jun 07, Wendy Smoak wrote:
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All the new stuff is here:
http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/
Is there a buildable-from-source distribution?
I only see -bin here: http://people.apache.org/~jv
On 14 Jun 07, at 5:58 AM 14 Jun 07, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
-1 (conditional)
evoking the spirit of dkulp ...
1) The embedded maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar has bad LICENSE.txt and
NOTICE.txt files.
1a) The LICENSE.txt at the root of the maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar is
for JSch's LGPL license. not A
On 14 Jun 07, at 7:14 AM 14 Jun 07, Wendy Smoak wrote:
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All the new stuff is here:
http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/
Is there a buildable-from-source distribution?
I only see -bin here: http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/maven-2.0.7/
On 6/14/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All the new stuff is here:
http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/
Is there a buildable-from-source distribution?
I only see -bin here: http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/maven-2.0.7/
--
Wendy
--
On 14 Jun 07, at 5:58 AM 14 Jun 07, Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
-1 (conditional)
evoking the spirit of dkulp ...
1) The embedded maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar has bad LICENSE.txt and
NOTICE.txt files.
1a) The LICENSE.txt at the root of the maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar is
for JSch's LGPL license. not A
For what it's worth, the original staged version seems ok on all my
builds.
-Original Message-
From: Max Bowsher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:22 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Maven 2.0.7
Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
> -1 (conditional)
>
Joakim Erdfelt wrote:
> -1 (conditional)
>
> evoking the spirit of dkulp ...
>
> 1) The embedded maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar has bad LICENSE.txt and
> NOTICE.txt files.
> 1a) The LICENSE.txt at the root of the maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar is for
> JSch's LGPL license. not ASL.
> 1b) There is no NOTICE
-1 (conditional)
evoking the spirit of dkulp ...
1) The embedded maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar has bad LICENSE.txt and
NOTICE.txt files.
1a) The LICENSE.txt at the root of the maven-core-2.0.7-uber.jar is for
JSch's LGPL license. not ASL.
1b) There is no NOTICE.txt file at the root.
1c) There is
Hi,
I still need help für this issue. Why are varibles aren't filtered during
installation in a repository? This sounds like a bug to me, or at least like a
strange behaviour - am I wrong? Please help someone!
Cheers,
Frank
Another example (without dependecy). The POM ist copied 1:1 to the r
I tried with 2.0-beta-4 and 2.0-beta-6. Same issue.
--- Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>
> On 14 Jun 07, at 12:48 AM 14 Jun 07, Julien HENRY
> wrote:
>
> > IMHO it should be fixed before 2.0.7. If not, the
> > release process will be broken (the scm tag will
> be
> > done even if s
+1, tested on a project with 15 modules.
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
+1, tested on my m2 projects
Arnaud
On 13/06/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
The release notes are here:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
projectId=10500&styleName=Html&version=13138
The tag
Do we need to reopen an issue that this originally fixed?
I'll close 3055 after testing.
- Brett
On 14/06/2007, at 5:54 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
All fixed. Running a battery of checks now but the change is very
small and I know it has been working in the form it is now because
I only chang
On 14 Jun 07, at 12:48 AM 14 Jun 07, Julien HENRY wrote:
IMHO it should be fixed before 2.0.7. If not, the
release process will be broken (the scm tag will be
done even if something goes wrong during the build).
You tried with these:
http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/maven-2.0.7/
And you'v
All fixed. Running a battery of checks now but the change is very
small and I know it has been working in the form it is now because I
only changed it about 8 days ago when trying to get rid of a class of
problems as the one found in the jbi-components build. I don't think
this needs revote
IMHO it should be fixed before 2.0.7. If not, the
release process will be broken (the scm tag will be
done even if something goes wrong during the build).
--- Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> It's possibly a problem in the windows batch file in
> 2.0.7 - I think
> it was changed and
51 matches
Mail list logo
