On 14/06/2008, at 12:58 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
If we don't include the new artifact code, the we need to fix
several issues related to reresolving artifacts multiple times.
Thanks Brian. Are these already issues in JIRA? I didn't spot them in
my search.
Cheers,
Brett
On Jun 13, 2008,
+1
for 3, I'd reuse whatever Ant uses, or stick with something simple and
handcrafted. I'm not sure you need to invest too much time writing
something new.
Cheers,
Brett
On 14/06/2008, at 8:50 AM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Hi
I'm in the process of converting the Ant builds, at my day job,
+1
Vincent
2008/6/8 Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> We solved 2 issues:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11761&styleName=Html&version=14366
>
> There are still 1 issue left in JIRA:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=117
+1
Rahul
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
Oleg has been contributing patches to the artifact mechanism for well
over 6 months and has gone through some steps to look at graph-based
resolution, and subsequently moved on to the boolean solver method of
performing version selection in artifact resolu
Sounds like a good idea to me.
-Original Message-
From: Dennis Lundberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 6:51 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: [DISCUSS] The documentation for Maven Ant Tasks
Hi
I'm in the process of converting the Ant builds, at my day job, to
+1
--
Olivier
2008/6/14 Dennis Lundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I need one more vote for this one...
>
> Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We solved 2 issues:
>>
>> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11761&styleName=Html&version=14366
>>
>> There are still 1 issue left
I need one more vote for this one...
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Hi,
We solved 2 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11761&styleName=Html&version=14366
There are still 1 issue left in JIRA:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=11761&st
Hi
I'm in the process of converting the Ant builds, at my day job, to use
Maven Ant tasks for dependency management. This is my first contact with
Maven Ant tasks so I gave the doc a thorough reading and made some
corrections and alterations. The doc is currently only one page [1] and
is part
I made something similar to help setup on my project :
running mvn -Psetup execute all required goals to prepare the developer env,
in my case a fast build (skipTests=true, compiler fail=false) +
eclipse:eclipse
This is done using a custom setup profile, that set default goal, some
properties and
To me, it seems to detract from the intent of having a well known set of
phases so once you know maven, you can pick up any maven build. It reeks
of scripting...
-Original Message-
From: Jason Dillon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason
Dillon
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:11 AM
T
+1 [non-binding]
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
Oleg has been contributing patches to the artifact mechanism for well
over 6 months and has gone through some steps to look at graph-based
resolution, and subsequently moved on to the boolean solver method of
performing version selection in artifact
Looks like we're good to go here. Oleg already has a CLA on file, so I
will put his account request through.
On 13-Jun-08, at 10:02 AM, Fabrice Bellingard wrote:
+1
- Fabrice
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:20 AM, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi,
Oleg has been
+1
- Fabrice
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:20 AM, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Oleg has been contributing patches to the artifact mechanism for well over
> 6 months and has gone through some steps to look at graph-based resolution,
> and subsequently moved on
+1
Arnaud
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Jason Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> --jason
>
>
>
> On Jun 13, 2008, at 9:30 PM, John Casey wrote:
>
> +1
>>
>> -john
>>
>> Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Oleg has been contributing patches to the artifact mechanism for well
>>> o
Just had a thought, would be nice if the pom exposed someway to define
aliases for a set of goals/phases.
This would allow project specific names to be used to invoke a set of
standard maven phases or a set of plugins.
Like I might want o have a "release" alias, which actually invokes:
+1
--jason
On Jun 13, 2008, at 9:30 PM, John Casey wrote:
+1
-john
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
Oleg has been contributing patches to the artifact mechanism for
well over 6 months and has gone through some steps to look at graph-
based resolution, and subsequently moved on to the boolean s
If we don't include the new artifact code, the we need to fix several
issues related to reresolving artifacts multiple times.
On Jun 13, 2008, at 5:28 AM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I went through the "unscheduled" bunch of issues looking for
reported 2.1 regressions this morn
+1
-john
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
Oleg has been contributing patches to the artifact mechanism for well
over 6 months and has gone through some steps to look at graph-based
resolution, and subsequently moved on to the boolean solver method of
performing version selection in artifact resolut
I would _love_ to do an alpha release before we get into further
refactoring efforts. I use 2.1 as my default now, and while I don't
venture too far afield into EAR, EJB, or other project types, I believe
it's at least stable enough for an alpha-1. Obviously, there is an
endless wishlist we cou
It's definitely alpha. There are so many variances at this point it
can't go out as a beta.
On 13-Jun-08, at 7:11 AM, Paul Gier wrote:
Mauro Talevi wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
I believe we should start to knock these off, and prepare for an
alpha release as is, and wanted to see what othe
Mauro Talevi wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
I believe we should start to knock these off, and prepare for an alpha
release as is, and wanted to see what others thought.
To cover the inevitable questions:
- Why release now?
163 fixes, 32 months since 2.0. 'Nuff said.
I would even make a 2.1-b
+1
2008/6/13 Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> Oleg has been contributing patches to the artifact mechanism for well over 6
> months and has gone through some steps to look at graph-based resolution,
> and subsequently moved on to the boolean solver method of performing version
> select
+1, have only heard good things about oleg :)
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 4:13 AM, Raphaël Piéroni
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
> Raphaël
>
> 2008/6/13 Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Oleg has been contributing patches to the artifact mechanism for well over 6
>> months and has gone
Brett Porter wrote:
I believe we should start to knock these off, and prepare for an alpha
release as is, and wanted to see what others thought.
To cover the inevitable questions:
- Why release now?
163 fixes, 32 months since 2.0. 'Nuff said.
I would even make a 2.1-beta-1. Betas are by
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Why release now?
>
> 163 fixes, 32 months since 2.0. 'Nuff said.
[...]
> best of our knowledge - doesn't have any regressions from 2.0.x. This is
> really a necessary platform before making further, bigger changes.
I
I went through the "unscheduled" bunch of issues looking for reported
2.1 regressions this morning, and in what probably makes a clear
statement about my sanity, cleaned up a number of the 180 issues and
scheduled some for 2.0.x / 2.1 depending on their type (for those that
couldn't be clos
+1
Raphaël
2008/6/13 Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> Oleg has been contributing patches to the artifact mechanism for well over 6
> months and has gone through some steps to look at graph-based resolution,
> and subsequently moved on to the boolean solver method of performing version
A non-binding +1, I'm all for world-class artifact resolution!
Mark
2008/6/13 Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> Oleg has been contributing patches to the artifact mechanism for well over 6
> months and has gone through some steps to look at graph-based resolution,
> and subsequently mo
Hi John,
I haven't looked at the code, but angling at it purely from the
proposal... it does make sense - the problem in the related issues is
forking lifecycles. In general, under the current structure, keeping
the pre-interpolated model and applying that after forking would make
sense.
29 matches
Mail list logo
