Sound goods for me.
Also, we could use the overview javadoc parameter to specify doc or samples.
Cheers,
Vincent
2007/9/9, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I would prefer the javadocs so it's self contained. Anyone looking at
> this detailed level would really want javadocs and not an APT any
+1
Vincent
2007/9/10, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> +1
>
> On 10/09/2007, at 6:26 AM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like to release maven-one-plugin 1.2.
> >
> > Release Notes:
> > http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
> > projectId=11241&styleName=Html&version=13
Ok, since other people seem against me on using multiple poms, I will spend some
more time trying to get everything working with profiles ;)
Then I will blame all of the maven community if there are bugs with my builds
later on :p
Andrew Williams wrote:
I would have thought that a combination o
ok, I'll create my upload request with my bundles and ASAP I'll update our
forge to be able to rsync it with the central repo.
thx.
Arnaud
On 11/09/2007, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 9/11/07, Arnaud HERITIER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The bundle is just a jar with this po
I would have thought that a combination of classifiers and profiles
with a decent DependencyManagement should do it.
Make activating a profile at any level will change mydep-1.0 to
mydep-1.0-jdk1.4 thoughout the tree.
Of course you would need to be sure that the depManagement covered
every si
On 9/11/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 11 Sep 07, at 9:25 AM 11 Sep 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>
> > i'd like to see 2.0.8 released with the old artifact code and then
> > 2.0.9 with the new one so we have a clear checkpoint to easily know if
> > there are problems with the new
Frequent, fast releases sure would help - but I am not sure they are
always a good idea, say (as many do) that an API break is needed in
the alpha code - I'm not sure that should pass by on the fast track,
it could cause problems with those in the wrong time zone not being
able to comment.
On 11 Sep 07, at 9:25 AM 11 Sep 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
i'd like to see 2.0.8 released with the old artifact code and then
2.0.9 with the new one so we have a clear checkpoint to easily know if
there are problems with the new approach
How is 2.0.7 not a clear point?
And if a few of us are
Yes, I would think it is a good plan to see as much shared between
2.0.x and 2.1 as possible, except the core codebase of course ;)
Andy
On 11 Sep 2007, at 03:40, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
How do people feel about trying to use maven-artifact in 2.0.x?
The code has not changed, and backward
On 9/11/07, Arnaud HERITIER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The bundle is just a jar with this pom ?
yes
> I'll certainly setup a synced repo on our future forge.
> The actual one is on widows. What a hassle!
the upload bundle is a pita for anything more complex than a simple jar
>
> Arnaud
>
> On
i'd like to see 2.0.8 released with the old artifact code and then
2.0.9 with the new one so we have a clear checkpoint to easily know if
there are problems with the new approach
On 9/10/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> How do people feel about trying to use maven-artifact in
On 11 Sep 07, at 6:58 AM 11 Sep 07, Mark Hobson wrote:
On 10/09/2007, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I tried out your changes in 2.1 and it seems to work just fine.
Sweet!
Now if this works in 2.0.x and we decide we can go that path that
will be even sweeter.
Have you tried the m
On 11/09/2007, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do people feel about trying to use maven-artifact in 2.0.x?
>
> The code has not changed, and backward compatibility will be
> maintained, and from Mark's trials it appears to work. Is this
> correct Mark? The ITs run using the decoupled
I think it's a good idea. The risk is it delays 2.0.8 a little longer,
but the benefit of getting there sooner and being compatible with the
changes in 2.1 shouldn't be underestimated.
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:41
On 10/09/2007, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tried out your changes in 2.1 and it seems to work just fine. Sweet!
>
> Now if this works in 2.0.x and we decide we can go that path that
> will be even sweeter.
>
> Have you tried the maven-artifact trunk in 2.0.x?
>
> I haven't tried it
LAMY Olivier a écrit :
Hi,
In fact, I think "Choose a Build Definition" is not very clear.
The best should be something like : "You can choose a Build Definition but if you don't the default one will be used".
But it's a little bit huge for a list box ;-) .
I will look at the tooltip feature
The bundle is just a jar with this pom ?
I'll certainly setup a synced repo on our future forge.
The actual one is on widows. What a hassle!
Arnaud
On 10/09/2007, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> create another bundle with just the pom, but if you are gonna do it
> from time to time
yes, we can turn off it, but it would be good to deploy the assemblies
somewhere (in a snapshot repo?) so users/testers will can use them.
About the nightly build, I think we should run it until the the beta-3 update
so we'll can run a fresh build every nights.
Emmanuel
Brett Porter a écrit :
Ok thanks.
I'll try to see if I can find some hours to help on it.
Arnaud
On 11/09/2007, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 11/09/2007, at 5:57 AM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
>
> > Hi team,
> >
> > Will we release the 2.0.8 ?
> > It was scheduled for mid-august (
> > http://docs.code
Hi All ,
I wonder if add a new feature something like " mvn eclipseme:eclipseme " ,
to make a J2ME project. Any one want involve this work ? I just comit this
requirement..
20 matches
Mail list logo
