Re: [2.0.9 RC4]

Brian, We ran most of Confluences builds live on that teams build server - I'm happy to report that no new issues have cropped up. From my perspective, sans webdav, I think this release is a go. James On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 21:35 -0400, Brian E. Fox wrote: > RC4 corrects the version issue identifi

RE: [2.0.9 RC4]

The work was done under the original tickets, MNG-3119 and MNG-2339. Both of those where caused by "fixes" in 2.0.9. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Benedict Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:00 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re

Re: [2.0.9 RC4]

Will any tickets be made of these in case they end up regressing (re-opening) in the future? On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RC4 corrects the version issue identified by Olivier and the Duplicate > artifacts exception identified by several testers. It's

[jira] Subscription: Design & Best Practices

Issue Subscription Filter: Design & Best Practices (29 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

[2.0.9 RC4]

RC4 corrects the version issue identified by Olivier and the Duplicate artifacts exception identified by several testers. It's staged at: http://people.apache.org/~brianf/staging-repository/org/apache/maven/apa che-maven/2.0.9-RC4/ We'll let this one simmer for a bit while discussion occurs o

RE: Wagon changes and WebDAV

+1 On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 20:11 -0400, Brian E. Fox wrote: > >The other problem with dropping it into the distribution is that when > >we find out there is a bug in it you can't simply specify a new > >version of the provider, you would have to go replace the provider and > > >all its deps, or

Re: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3

I've been testing the Wagon Webdav module in the current release candidate - there are a few glitches to do with the graceful handling of redirects. See WAGON-103 for more details. I recommend that we should retract this from core for the 2.0.9 release. James On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 11:48 +0100,

[VOTE] Release Maven Eclipse plugin version 2.5.1

Hi, Since the 2.5 release we did 10 days ago, we solved 3 annoying issues: * [MECLIPSE-266] - plugin applies java facet to ear project * [MECLIPSE-411] - manifest property usage is only for ogsi maifests * [MECLIPSE-413] - EclipseOSGiManifestWriter uses the artifact id and not the Ec

RE: Wagon changes and WebDAV

>The other problem with dropping it into the distribution is that when >we find out there is a bug in it you can't simply specify a new >version of the provider, you would have to go replace the provider and >all its deps, or make your own shaded JAR which would be a pain in the >ass. (see

Re: CLI Properties vs. Model Properties (Was Re: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3)

There should be absolutely no system properties manipulation in the bowels of Maven. Or envars, they both need to be trapped at the front- end because we end up with little bits here and there. They should all be grabbed from the CLI, the order of precedence determined and then passed into M

RE: CLI Properties vs. Model Properties (Was Re: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3)

We're actively discussing on IRC, but in my mind a correct fix is one that fixes the root of the jira, which is that system properties where hosing versions, and doesn't break more builds. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Benedict Sent:

Re: CLI Properties vs. Model Properties (Was Re: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3)

On 28/03/2008, at 6:37 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: Brian, what do you consider the correct fix? That CLI takes precedence over POM properties? I was trying to glean through this chain to find out your proposal. The "most correct" fix is: a) -Dversion should still replace ${version} b) -Dvers

Re: CLI Properties vs. Model Properties (Was Re: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3)

Brian, what do you consider the correct fix? That CLI takes precedence over POM properties? I was trying to glean through this chain to find out your proposal. Paul On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I can't see why overriding model values makes any sen

RE: CLI Properties vs. Model Properties (Was Re: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3)

>I can't see why overriding model values makes any sense from the >command line - that's not what Olivier wanted but rather a straight >substitution. You shouldn't be able to override model values for sure. I was saying that if something is defined on the CLI for everything else, it should ta

RE: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3

Hi Dan, we saw that last night, try the RC4-SNAPSHOT: http://people.apache.org/~brianf -Original Message- From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 2:54 PM To: dev@maven.apache.org Subject: Re: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3 I'm seeing a regression in CXF

Re: CLI Properties vs. Model Properties (Was Re: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3)

I changed it, and it was in http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-2339 as the comment says. JDK 1.4 defines a system property for "version" that is "2.4.1" for some reason, and it wreaks havoc on anything that uses ${version}, $ {project.version}, etc. I can't see why overriding model values

Re: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3

I'm seeing a regression in CXF builds with 2.0.9-RC3. I cannot do a deploy. One of the CXF poms is probably not setup completely "optimal", but it works for 2.0.6-2.0.8. Basically, for some reason, it ends up running javadoc twice. With 2.0.8, that's fine. With 2.0.9, I get: [INFO] Bui

Re: CLI Properties vs. Model Properties (Was Re: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3)

I was incorrect; this is not a result of code I changed. I'll have to take a look at the SVN annotation to find the commit that changed this, but it looks like it may have been part of some work Jason was doing. I'm looking into it now. -john On Mar 27, 2008, at 1:19 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote

RE: CLI Properties vs. Model Properties (Was Re: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3)

We have to err on the side of not causing more regressions. If we want to move in this direction, we should start deprecating the non ${project. Forms of the properties with big warnings in 2.0.9. -Original Message- From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008

RE: CLI Properties vs. Model Properties (Was Re: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3)

CLI should win. There was an issue open that I wrote for that a while ago. I think it's still open even. -Original Message- From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:07 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: CLI Properties vs. Model Properties (Was Re: [pr

Re: CLI Properties vs. Model Properties (Was Re: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3)

Sorry for the spam. Digging deeper through the related links on MNG-2339, it's apparent that the comment in the DefaultMavenProjectBuilder is a touch misleading. The key issues relevant to where sysprops get used during interpolation are: MNG-2745 MNG-2651 It seems that environments that

CLI Properties vs. Model Properties (Was Re: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3)

BTW, I found this comment on line 981 of DefaultMavenProjectBuilder: // [MNG-2339] ensure the system properties are still interpolated for backwards compat, but the model values must win I've checked that issue, and it looks like it was closed for this release...so, not present in 2

Re: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3

Hmm, I'll have to do some homework on this one, but yeah, it looks like the interpolation changes I put in to get the path-translation in place. I'll have to see if I can work up a test case for this, and try to track down that original issue. Let me get to work on it and I'll see how fast

RE: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3

Hrm. It's probably a good idea to use a different property, but we should understand why this changed before going further. John, any ideas? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Olivier Lamy Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 6:56 AM To: Maven Devel

Re: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3

Hi, Testing on corporate projects and build fine. +1 I have just noticed a change ("regression" ?). We have a corporate plugin. In the pom it's configured as this : .. .. - ${version} .. We use it with mvn blabla -Dversion=here a version.

Re: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3

Tested on my projects, works fine. Here's my +1 for RC4. -- Fabrice - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 4:26 AM, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sejal, James, could you try with this informal RC? > http://people.apache.org/~brianf/2.0.9/

Re: unsubscribe

Thanks, Although it was actually the notifications list I wanted to be unsubscribed from...:) Dennis Lundberg wrote: Nino Saturnino Martinez Vazquez Wael wrote: Info on how to subscribe to and unsubscribe from Maven mailing lists can be found on this page: http://maven.apache.org/mail-l

Re: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3

I've built mevenide with it and it worked fine. +1 Milos On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:59 AM, Jorg Heymans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > same here, no apparent issues with RC4 on my projects. > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:27 AM, nicolas de loof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > Tested w

Re: i am facing problem when i using tomcat 6.0 + maven2

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am very sorry, I need help urgently I have problem with using tomcat 6.0.14 with maven2 + cargo. Can u help or give suggestions Thanks & Regards, Sridhar Thota, Hi, According to Cargo website at http://cargo.codehaus.org/, it seems that Tomcat 6.0 is not suppo

Re: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3

same here, no apparent issues with RC4 on my projects. On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:27 AM, nicolas de loof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 > > Tested with my local projects with no issue. > > 2008/3/26, Raphaël Piéroni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > +1 the bundle worked fine to build > > the archetype

Re: [pre vote take 3] 2.0.9-RC3

+1 Tested with my local projects with no issue. 2008/3/26, Raphaël Piéroni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > +1 the bundle worked fine to build > the archetype plugin. > > Raphaël > > 2008/3/26, Raphaël Piéroni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > +1 for the new process. > > not yet tested the bundle. > > > > Rap