Hey All,
I have a general question about the plugin resolution policy.
For a while now, we've been using the maven-apt-plugin (
http://myfaces.apache.org/tobago/tobago-tool/maven-apt-plugin/index.html).
To invoke the plugin directly, we would just run "mvn apt:execute".
Something happened recent
I'll try another machine when I next get online - expecting a boarding
call shortly :) I'll see what it has to say about those 81/65 errors
too.
This test is checking that the problem we saw with the stage plugin in
2.0.9 is corrected.
- Brett
On 18/06/2008, at 3:11 AM, John Casey wrote:
Partial response:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:29 PM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Shane,
>
> This looks like a pretty positive step. Is the code on your branch for
> MNG-3536 an implementation of this? How far along is it?
No, this is just for 2.1 and nothing to do with 3536. The
no other reaction, neither in dev nor user list.
I suppose this proposal is ok.
I'll start code changes in a few days.
Regards,
Hervé
Le dimanche 01 juin 2008, Benjamin Bentmann a écrit :
> Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> > http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Reporting+Encoding+Configuration
>
> +1
>
plexus-utils later than 1.1 has a Maven 2.0.6 prerequisite
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: vsiveton
Date: Tue Jun 17 14:01:28 2008
New Revision: 668827
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=668827&view=rev
Log:
o bumped to p-u 1.5.4-snap
o bumped to maven 2.0.4 as prerequisite and dependencies
Hudson is seeing all ITs pass on trunk now, but 2.0.x has an IT failure
for MNG-3581. Brett, can you have a look? I'm seeing the following output:
testmng3581(org.apache.maven.integrationtests.MavenITmng3581PluginUsesWagonDependency)
Time elapsed: 3.623 sec <<< ERROR!
org.apache.maven.it.Veri
I'll have to check hudson, as that's what I've been using as my guide
for the most part. For some reason, my localhost seems to be a much
friendlier environment for ITs. ;-)
FWIW, I have no problem commenting those new ITs...the thought occurred
to me late last night, just haven't done it yet.
I think the title of John's proposal is actually a bit misleading - it
refers to the runtime behaviour of the existing POM, not any change to
the way you can use the POM itself.
- Brett
On 17/06/2008, at 5:12 PM, Gilles Scokart wrote:
I have seen recently some discussion about enhancing th
I have seen recently some discussion about enhancing the dynamicity of
the pom. This is maybe a good thing for the build section in the
source pom.
I know that the discussion were about those part. But please, make
sure that this will not leak into the published pom.
When working on the dynamic
