On 02/10/2008, at 6:36 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
I'm really confused. Why is stuff going into 2.2.0 when 2.1.0 hasn't
even been finished. If the mercury wagon provider has improvements
and doesn't impact users why shouldn't it be added to the 2.1.0
roadmap?
Amen to that. I'm all for branch
On 02/10/2008, at 5:23 AM, John Casey wrote:
http://www.nabble.com/WebDAV-deploying-bug-with-Maven-2.1.0-M1-to19673500.html
Admittedly, not a real healthy discussion, but IMO it might be
worthwhile to discuss. The jackrabbit implementation is new as of
1.0-beta-3 (really beta-4, since beta
On 02/10/2008, at 7:03 AM, Oleg Gusakov wrote:
Ralph Goers wrote:
I'm really confused. Why is stuff going into 2.2.0 when 2.1.0
hasn't even been finished. If the mercury wagon provider has
improvements and doesn't impact users why shouldn't it be added to
the 2.1.0 roadmap?
I don't hav
I'm happy with that :)
James
On Fri, 2008-09-26 at 22:15 +0200, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> If we are just tossing in brand new technology into 2.1 I think we
> should just put Mercury into 2.1. It has a _lot_ of tests and is
> actively being worked on by 5 people in the community. It also covers
I agree with that. Sorry, I didn't see you were talking about 2.1 in your
first reply.
cheers
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 1:50 AM, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think anyone is talking about putting mercury in 2.0.x; we're
> looking at putting it in 2.1.0, where up to this point (2
I don't think anyone is talking about putting mercury in 2.0.x; we're
looking at putting it in 2.1.0, where up to this point (2.1.0-M1) we've
been using the jackrabbit webDAV wagon. Mercury would replace that, and
could replace the http wagon as well.
-j
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
If we consider
To say it's the existing implementation doesn't really capture the
situation accurately, IMO. Jackrabbit is only the existing
implementation since the beta-4 release, and has only be included in the
first milestone of 2.1.0 of Maven. I'm not sure where else it's included
- say, Archiva, or wher
The point was to do one milestone release per major feature, to help
firewall one set of changes from others, and give us a little more focus
in creating good tests for that feature. We haven't even finalized that
release plan, or 2.2.0 for that matter, which is what I brought up
originally.
Felix Knecht wrote:
> Hi all
>
> The foofoo profile is always activated, no matter if a file 'timestamp'
> exists in the same directory like the pom.xml or
> not. It looks to me as the ${basedir} is not correctly resolved. Is this a
> known problem?
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3524
>
Wendy Smoak wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Is there something holding the release of the clean plugin?
>> Last release 2.2 was Nov 2007 and 8 issues have been fixed since then
>
> Strange, it didn't show any fixed-but-not-released issues
If we consider to be dangerous to include interpolation changes on which we
made a lot of tests, and a lot of RCs) I think it will be a very very bad
idea to try to include a new component like mercury in 2.0.x (I have nothing
against it, it's just that we don't know which issues we'll encounter).
Ralph Goers wrote:
I'm really confused. Why is stuff going into 2.2.0 when 2.1.0 hasn't
even been finished. If the mercury wagon provider has improvements
and doesn't impact users why shouldn't it be added to the 2.1.0 roadmap?
I don't have any problem with that. Will try it with 2.1.x branch
I'm really confused. Why is stuff going into 2.2.0 when 2.1.0 hasn't
even been finished. If the mercury wagon provider has improvements and
doesn't impact users why shouldn't it be added to the 2.1.0 roadmap?
I'm also wondering why the enhancement I did to fix MNG-624 can't go
into M2 instead
Oh. I saw that. I guess I read more into it. I had this crazy idea that
someone was thinking of using jackrabbit as their Maven repository.
Actually, making Jackrabbit into a repository isn't a bad idea at all.
In any case, it seems what you are saying is that there is simply a
choice in wheth
To clarify: mercury wagon provider as a handler for http/htps/dav/davs
passes (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MERCURY-11) all the ITs in
2.2.0-M1-SNAPHOT branch, and I pretty confident it will pass them in any
branch.
I am finalizing CI/bootstrap aspects of the builds.
Thanks,
Oleg
John C
http://www.nabble.com/WebDAV-deploying-bug-with-Maven-2.1.0-M1-to19673500.html
Admittedly, not a real healthy discussion, but IMO it might be
worthwhile to discuss. The jackrabbit implementation is new as of
1.0-beta-3 (really beta-4, since beta-3 is badly broken), and mercury
has been under a
This might help clarify it for you:
http://blogs.sonatype.com/brian/2008/09/05/1220649145080.html
Technically the most recent release is 2.1M1 but if you don't consider
M1 a real release, then yes 2.0.9 is the latest.
-Original Message-
From: emiddio-verizon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sen
please explain -- the latest maven2 i can find binaries of -- not beta is
2.0.9;
yet there is a 2.1.x trunk/branch, and also 3.0.x trunk/branch or something
of the ilk,
my question -- what is going on with these other branches/trunks?
is maven 2.0.9 the "latest" released version?
thanks
+1
--
Olivier
2008/9/29 Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Look now! :-)
>
> On 29-Sep-08, at 5:35 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> When I look at the stage repo, I see 1.2-SNAPSHOT ?
>>
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~jvanzyl/shady-stage/org/apache/maven/plugins/maven-shade-plugin/
>>
>> --
+1
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 8:10 AM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Maven Shade Plugin 1.2
>
> Look now!
I don't recall seeing a discussion on jackrabbit vs mercury. Do you have
a link?
John Casey wrote:
I'm stuck in assembly-plugin mode for the moment, but if you want to
move forward with it, go ahead. FWIW, we also need to put the 2.1
release plan to a vote, particularly given the little bit o
I'm still not, since it's M1 we don't know how many users actually
grabbed it. I wouldn't want to shove this out as 2.0.10 since it could
break something we don't know of.
-Original Message-
From: Arnaud HERITIER [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 1:40 PM
To: Mave
+1
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 8:10 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Maven Shade Plugin 1.2
Look now! :-)
On 29-Sep-08, at 5:35 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> Hi,
> When I look at the stage repo, I
Yes, but when we voted we was always in pain with RCs. We wasn't able to
have something stable.
Now that published the first milestone are we always not enough confident in
this change?
For exemple we know that there at least one bug with the wagon upgrade. Thus
it's normal to not upgrade it actual
I rolled the 2.0.x branch back from that already. Both that and the
interpolation changes were rolled back, which were the two major changes
that happened before we branched for the RCs
Brian E. Fox wrote:
We need to roll out the dynamism changes if they haven't already.
-Original Message
In 2.0.10, those changes where what prompted us to make it 2.1. 2.0.10
should have smallish bug fixes only.
-Original Message-
From: Arnaud HERITIER [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 10:34 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.0.10 release?
Why ?
It'
Why ?
It's working well finally ?
Arnaud
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> We need to roll out the dynamism changes if they haven't already.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:
On 01/10/2008, at 11:59 PM, John Casey wrote:
I'm stuck in assembly-plugin mode for the moment, but if you want to
move forward with it, go ahead.
Sure, I can grab that if you like, since I imagine you'll be busy on
2.1.0-M2 soon.
FWIW, we also need to put the 2.1 release plan to a vote,
We need to roll out the dynamism changes if they haven't already.
-Original Message-
From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:38 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Maven 2.0.10 release?
Hi,
Is anyone opposed to moving forward with a (likely muc
Make a custom rule. The plugin page has links to step by step and a zip
that has the sample code to make your own. It's pretty easy.
-Original Message-
From: Arjun [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 9:12 PM
To: dev@maven.apache.org
Subject: Maven Build Fail Plugin
I'm stuck in assembly-plugin mode for the moment, but if you want to
move forward with it, go ahead. FWIW, we also need to put the 2.1
release plan to a vote, particularly given the little bit of discussion
we've had over jackrabbit vs. mercury.
...all things I haven't had time to clear off my
Hi,
Is anyone opposed to moving forward with a (likely much shorter)
2.0.10 release cycle with what is already on the branch now?
Was anyone already planning to do this?
- Brett
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
-
A branch is just like the trunk, ie. never a stable version, but
always SNAPSHOT. Stable versions are called tags in Subversion.
With regards,
Nick Stolwijk
~Java Developer~
Iprofs BV.
Claus Sluterweg 125
2012 WS Haarlem
www.iprofs.nl
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:03 AM, emiddio-verizon <[EMAIL PR
33 matches
Mail list logo
