On 7/23/08, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 22-Jul-08, at 8:55 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>>
>> On 23/07/2008, at 4:23 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
Hi,
I've wanted to pick up my wor
On 7/23/08, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 23/07/2008, at 4:23 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've wanted to pick up my work on this for some time and was
>>> prodded by the
>>> [EMAIL
Hello,
I has been evaluating Maven to start using it to replace our existing Ant
build scripts. To give you a background:
- My work is such that I have multiple projects that I do for multiple
customers but the nature of the project is mostly the same. I basically
customize a base product of a
Hi John!
Thanks for the improvements to the test :) I've added a couple more
for other scenarios.
I made some adjustments to the implementation you put in place:
- made sure maven-artifact wasn't relying on the existence of maven-
core - so it sets it's bit, then core prefixes the Maven vers
Brian E. Fox wrote:
Oleg, what's the new staging url?
The good old one:
http://repository.sonatype.org:8081/nexus/content/repositories/staged-releases/maven-artifact/org/apache/maven/artifact/maven-artifact/3.0-alpha-1/
I dropped-and-replaced it.
-Original Message-
From: Oleg Gusak
Oleg, what's the new staging url?
-Original Message-
From: Oleg Gusakov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:04 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release maven-artifact-3.0-alpha-1
Guys,
I re-released 3.0-alpha-1 with my key, manually, no automation :
Guys,
I re-released 3.0-alpha-1 with my key, manually, no automation :(
Please vote.
Brett Porter wrote:
Hi Oleg,
Looking at the release, the signatures are from a generic key. While
we're debating that in the other thread, for this release, can you
sign the artifacts using your own key, an
On 22-Jul-08, at 8:55 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 23/07/2008, at 4:23 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi,
I've wanted to pick up my work on this for some time and was
prodded by the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] threads to ta
On 23/07/2008, at 4:23 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Hi,
I've wanted to pick up my work on this for some time and was
prodded by the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] threads to take another crack at this.
http://docs.codehaus.o
On 23/07/2008, at 1:34 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Ok,
I have a package for the new 140 version as that's what I'm using
but what they have in central currently doesn't use classifiers
which is probably not so good.
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/bouncycastle/
So we can either:
1) Foll
The vote has passed with the following votes:
+1 Wendy, Olivier, Vincent
I'll move the artifacts over.
Cheers,
Vincent
2008/7/18, Vincent Siveton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> Important note: this release changes the groupId for the artifacts:
>
> http://maven.markmail.org/message/s6l35jjjy
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've wanted to pick up my work on this for some time and was prodded by the
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] threads to take another crack at this.
>
> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Repository+Security (the issue and
> r
On Jul 22, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Ok,
I have a package for the new 140 version as that's what I'm using
but what they have in central currently doesn't use classifiers
which is probably not so good.
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/bouncycastle/
So we can either:
1) F
Ok,
I have a package for the new 140 version as that's what I'm using but
what they have in central currently doesn't use classifiers which is
probably not so good.
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/bouncycastle/
So we can either:
1) Follow what they have their which is incorrect technica
Hi there,
I've encountered an issue with the scope resolution for nearest test
and farthest provided scenario. Consider the following projects:
a -> commons-lang
b -> commons-lang
c -> a:test, b:provided
Where -> denotes a dependency and group ids, types and versions have
been omitt
On 23/07/2008, at 12:23 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
Brett,
What are you doing about the fact that we cannot ship any versions
of bouncycastle that is currently in the central repository due to
the IDEA patent encumbered algorithm in it?
(FYI: they did create a new "140" version with it remov
Brett,
What are you doing about the fact that we cannot ship any versions of
bouncycastle that is currently in the central repository due to the
IDEA patent encumbered algorithm in it?
(FYI: they did create a new "140" version with it removed, but it's
not at central yet)
Dan
On Jul
Okay. I had read the page but I wasn't clear whether you meant that
configured keyring to be where the verifier looked for a specified key
or if you expected the verifier to iterate over those keys. I'm gllad
it was the second option.
I think this pretty much covers what I was expecting then
On 22/07/2008, at 11:54 PM, Chad La Joie wrote:
Yeah, the code is a bit spread out at the moment. ;) Thanks for
the links though, that helped me find the rest of what I needed.
Looking at the code I have one question. Is the assumption that a
devloper would specifiy the signature-valida
2008/7/22 Benjamin Bentmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What the Mojo API specification is meant to say is that the mere notation of
>
> @requiresDependencyResolution
>
> is equivalent to the complete form
>
> @requiresDependencyResolution runtime
>
> This is realized by the maven-plugin-tools-java [0
Yeah, the code is a bit spread out at the moment. ;) Thanks for the
links though, that helped me find the rest of what I needed.
Looking at the code I have one question. Is the assumption that a
devloper would specifiy the signature-validating key, which will need to
be in their keyring, fo
Mark Hobson wrote:
http://maven.apache.org/developers/mojo-api-specification.html
Under requiresDependencyResolution, "If this annotation is present but
no scope is specified, the scope defaults to runtime."
What the Mojo API specification is meant to say is that the mere notation of
@requ
2008/7/22 Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The real default is whatever the last plugin requested. I'm sure of it
> because it hosed me trying to do the 2.0.8 release when a plugin changed
> the dependency resolution and broke later plugins. This is wrong and
> there's a jira for it: http://jira
On 22/07/2008, at 7:30 PM, Chad La Joie wrote:
So, I had a look at the code wagon manager code and it looks pretty
much as I'd have expected. I was not able to find the
WagonOpenPgpSignatureVerifierObserver class. Could you point me to
that?
Thanks.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven
>Under requiresDependencyResolution, "If this annotation is present but
>no scope is specified, the scope defaults to runtime."
>Anyone know what the real deal is?
The real default is whatever the last plugin requested. I'm sure of it
because it hosed me trying to do the 2.0.8 release when a plug
2007/12/31 Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Not specifying a phase is the same IIRC as not specifying
> @requiresDep
>
> When you do this, the results are indeterminate (you get whatever has
> already been resolved by previous plugins)
Just encountered this missing provided-scope artifact p
I will be out of the office starting 12.07.2008 and will not return until
28.07.2008.
I will respond to your message when I return. In urgent cases please refer
to Elena Tonoyan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) or Daria Ignatieva
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Please don't use the developer list for user questions.
On 21-Jul-08, at 5:43 PM, Boregowda, Krishna wrote:
Hi,
We are having Multi module maven project in our application. One of
the modules in our application is hibernate based. When I try to
import this project from the SVN repository ME
So, I had a look at the code wagon manager code and it looks pretty much
as I'd have expected. I was not able to find the
WagonOpenPgpSignatureVerifierObserver class. Could you point me to that?
Thanks.
Brett Porter wrote:
Hi Chad,
2008/7/22 Chad La Joie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Thanks Brett,
X
Y
Z
X
Y
Z
test-jar
My example was of course incomplete, I had
test
on the test-jar dep.
Regards,
Tobias
and somehow the classpath contained only the test-jar dependeny when
the tests were executed. I think this is bug
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-1971. Since th
Hi,
and somehow the classpath contained only the test-jar dependeny when
the tests were executed. I think this is bug
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-1971. Since there seems to be no real
Sorry, that's most likely not the right bug - still quite early here in
Germany ;) If I recall corr
Hi,
I'm getting a java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError when running a test and
yet, the code compiles fine. Any ideas as to what's going on? The
exact same code compiles and test fine on another box which has the
same mvn and java version.
I recently ran across the same issue. My pom.xml contained
32 matches
Mail list logo
