On 08/05/2008, at 1:00 AM, John Casey wrote:
In the POM and the unit test comments, it says it's meant to ensure
plugin-level configuration doesn't get wiped out by execution-level
configuration...but there is no plugin-level configuration (unless
I'm missing something). That seems to be a
Hi all,
After attempting the scm plugin on a machine without svn installed, I
started searching for pure-Java versions of this. I then discovered
SCM-13, where an implementation using SVNkit was investigated.
It seems to conclude that SVNkit licensing prohibited this from going
any further.
Cou
In the POM and the unit test comments, it says it's meant to ensure
plugin-level configuration doesn't get wiped out by execution-level
configuration...but there is no plugin-level configuration (unless
I'm missing something). That seems to be at least part of what's
confusing me here.
-j
On 08/05/2008, at 12:37 AM, John Casey wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm just wondering about what it0074 is trying to accomplish. It's
failing with the trunk version of Maven, and when I started digging
into it, the description in the POM and the corresponding JUnit test
case don't seem to match e
Hi everyone,
I'm just wondering about what it0074 is trying to accomplish. It's
failing with the trunk version of Maven, and when I started digging
into it, the description in the POM and the corresponding JUnit test
case don't seem to match either the POM configuration or the code in
the
+1
worked fine in a few tested projects
fabrizio
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 3:32 AM, Dan Fabulich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (ping) more votes please! :-) We currently have two binding +1, one
> non-binding +1.
>
> -Dan
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 09:49:39
I added more issues to 1.1. Lot of them are trivial and/or with patches.
About the new providers, I think they can be included in a final release.
More commands are required to use them with some plugins or Continuum but it
is a good start.
Emmanuel
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Brett Porter
