Well, I didn't really look at what you did, but I noticed that it did
improve my test times a little.
Dan Fabulich wrote:
A lot of good discussion here. Just as a reminder, my changes are one
very small check-in, in code that shouldn't have changed since August
12. It should be easy to merg
A lot of good discussion here. Just as a reminder, my changes are one
very small check-in, in code that shouldn't have changed since August 12.
It should be easy to merge, or even to back out and reapply if for some
reason that were necessary.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=
Sure. Just so you know I am running this on Ubuntu running in a VM
under Windows on a Thinkpad T60. It has 3GB of memory of which I've
given 1.5GB to Linux. I do have a faster machine but I've been working
on my stuff on the laptop.
I ran the builds all over again and got slightly different
It's upgraded to 1.249 now.
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 6:20 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [WARNING] Continuous integration for plugins is unusable
I'll schedule an update for the weekend.
On 21-Aug-08, at
Would you mind running with the latest code on the RC branch? I ran it,
but I'm not sure I have the environment setup the way people would
expect. The SVN for that branch is:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/components/branches/maven-2.0.10-RC
Ralph Goers wrote:
Yeah, I don't think you
Sorry I seem to have missed this mail. Next time kick me directly or on
#maven and I'll upgrade it.
-Original Message-
From: Arnaud HERITIER [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 5:10 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [WARNING] Continuous integration for plugin
John,
Just a quick note before I head off to bed
With the latest code on the 2.0.10-RC branch, my CXF test is now down to 44
seconds. (2.0.9 is about 33 secs) Memory usage is about the same:
2.0.9: 53M/94M
2.0.10-RC: 55M/100M
This is "mvn -Pfastinstall" from a non-clean build. Ba
Yeah, I don't think you need to be all that selective. I agree that
2.1.0 needs all the work you've been doing. I just ran the cxf build on
the 2.1.x branch. Here are the results I get when running mvn
-Pfastinstall install:
4:49 for 2.0.9,
8:51 on 2.1.x
8:41 on 2.1.x with my changes.
Memory
Issue Subscription
Filter: Design & Best Practices (28 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
As far as selective merging to 2.1.x, of course we'll keep things like
Dan's change, but where does that leave all of the stabilizing work on
the RC branch? Most of the substantive changes in the RC branch is also
in the 2.1.x branch, so to me it makes more sense to sync 2.1.x up with
the RC br
+1
On 21-Aug-08, at 4:33 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote:
I think it will be easier to merge Dan's changes into the code john
has
than the other way around, which is why I suggest that 2.0.10RC branch
becomes 2.1.x. Dans changes get merged into this new branch to become
2.1.1.
Then we roll back the 2
I think it will be easier to merge Dan's changes into the code john has
than the other way around, which is why I suggest that 2.0.10RC branch
becomes 2.1.x. Dans changes get merged into this new branch to become
2.1.1.
Then we roll back the 2.0.x branch to 2.0.9 and start cherry picking
pieces to
My non-binding preference is for option 1. I'm not crazy about renaming
2.0.10-RC. I'd really be surprised if merging that to 2.1.x would be
all that hard.
Brett Porter wrote:
This doesn't particularly appeal to me. maven-2.0.x is stranded in a
half merged state.
The current 2.1.x was cut f
This doesn't particularly appeal to me. maven-2.0.x is stranded in a
half merged state.
The current 2.1.x was cut from 2.0.x and I figured we'd just merge
everything that hit maven-2.0.x.
I'd prefer one of
1) merge all your stuff selectively to 2.1.x (along with Dan's
changes), and roll 2
On 22/08/2008, at 8:20 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
Well, before anyone begins doing 2.1 work, take the 3.0.x tickets and
update the descriptions of them. Many 3.0 tickets still descibe "2.1"
in their title.
The versions are right... changing descriptions is probably more
hassle than it is wort
I'll schedule an update for the weekend.
On 21-Aug-08, at 2:10 PM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
Plugins ITs are KO for several days now.
The build isn't launched and we have security errors in the
configuration
page of the project.
https://ci.sonatype.org/view/Plugins/job/plugins-IT-with-maven-2.0
Well, before anyone begins doing 2.1 work, take the 3.0.x tickets and
update the descriptions of them. Many 3.0 tickets still descibe "2.1"
in their title.
Paul
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Ralph Goers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where does all this leave 2.0.10? Shouldn't that be the first
Where does all this leave 2.0.10? Shouldn't that be the first thing out?
John Casey wrote:
No, it means it doesn't have all of the things causing the performance
problems (I did merge some stuff in several times around-and-before
RC6 or later), and none of the performance fixes I'm working on n
No, it means it doesn't have all of the things causing the performance
problems (I did merge some stuff in several times around-and-before RC6
or later), and none of the performance fixes I'm working on now.
IMO we should look at the current 2.1.x branch as working toward a 2.1.1
release, and
I've got a setup running now that checks for changes in build paths and
properties after a mojo runs, and transitions back to dynamic mode iff
there are changes...otherwise, it leaves it in concrete mode for the
next mojo execution. This works fairly well: Running the following command:
mvn -P
I would say that we should simply rename the 2.0.10-RC branch as
2.1.0-RC, and call that the branch used for releasing 2.1.0, with the
current 2.1.x branch being used for 2.1.1 as its first release. I'd
always intended to keep the changes I've made in the RC branch merged
with what was then 2.0
Brett created the 2.1.x branch on Aug 12. I believe it was from whatever
was currently in the 2.0.x branch at the time. The work I am doing is
against that branch but I haven't committed anything yet. I still have
quite a bit of testing to do. I would prefer to just have whatever is
in 2.0.10
I agree. We'd have to figure out how to merge Dan's reactor changes in
as I'm not sure where the 2.1 branch came from that he used. I would
probably rename the current 2.0.10 branch to 2.1.x, then merge the
branch dan used into it. We could then port the real bug fixes from the
current 2.0.10 back
>As for detecting
>project-state changes in the plugin itself (or the POM, as Brian asked
>about) we'd have to scan the entire logic of the mojo (and classes it
>used) to see whether any of it modified the project/model graph...which
>is obviously wy too heavy to do at runtime.
Actually wh
Plugins ITs are KO for several days now.
The build isn't launched and we have security errors in the configuration
page of the project.
https://ci.sonatype.org/view/Plugins/job/plugins-IT-with-maven-2.0.x/configure
Kohsuke says that the problem is fixed in 1.244
http://www.nabble.com/NPE-in-a-maven
That's an interpolation bug. Not sure whether it was fixed in RC9 or
not, unfortunately...
Tomislav Stojcevich wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:09 AM, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am still running RC8, but a very weird discovery occurred to my
project. I checked out a full proje
I'd say the 2.0.10 release ought to become 2.1.0. I think most of us are
thinking similar things at this point (based on conversations I've seen
here and on IRC), and its implementation is certainly different enough
to warrant it.
Ralph Goers wrote:
I'm still wondering if given the impact this
I'm still wondering if given the impact this has shouldn't it be pulled
from 2.0.x and moved into 2.1? In my view the purpose of 2.1.x is it
lock down 2.0.x to bug fixes that don't introduce new behaviors.
John Casey wrote:
So, I've been working on the hotspots (late last night and again this
So, I've been working on the hotspots (late last night and again this
morning) trying to see what improvements I could make. In the end, I was
able to improve things a bit in terms of interpolation efficiency and
model cloning (turned out that was a big time sink too). However, in the
end I thi
http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Amit Kapoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>We have setup our Maven 2 repository at
>http://maven.topazproject.org/maven2/ for Topaz project
>(http://www.topazproject.org/). Wh
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:09 AM, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am still running RC8, but a very weird discovery occurred to my
> project. I checked out a full project from SVN and ran eclipse:eclipse
> on a subfolder at the command line. I got a folder named
> "${project.basedir}".
Hi,
We have setup our Maven 2 repository at
http://maven.topazproject.org/maven2/ for Topaz project
(http://www.topazproject.org/). What is the process to sync this with
ibiblio?
Thanks.
Amit
-
To unsubscrib
I can verify that this is still an issue with RC9. As commented on the
Jira issue.
Regards,
Paul Nyheim
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As previous detailed, I created an issue for someone to look at:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3723
>
> Paul
As previous detailed, I created an issue for someone to look at:
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3723
Paul
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008, John Casey wrote:
Hi everyone,
I just wanted to point you to the message I sent to users@ telling
people they should go try 2.0.10-RC9. This release candidate
incorporates the fixes for the final two issues from RC8, and looks
like it's our best
Seems that with svn 1.4.4 the maven-release-plugin works just fine...
whats going on with SVN 1.5.x?
--jason
On Aug 21, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Jason Dillon wrote:
I'm having lots of problems using the maven-release-plugin with SVN
1.5.x on my Mac. I found this thread:
http://www.nabble.c
I'm having lots of problems using the maven-release-plugin with SVN
1.5.x on my Mac. I found this thread:
http://www.nabble.com/Mac-OS-X-%2B-SVN-1.5.1-%3D-Branch-problem-td19017538.html
Didn't find any solution though... except to use SVN 1.4.x, though
seems like I can't checkout with
37 matches
Mail list logo
