Re: [vote] release maven-clean-plugin 2.3 and file-management 1.2.1

2009-01-06 Thread Arnaud HERITIER
+1 arnaud On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:21 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > +1 > > > On 6-Jan-09, at 9:27 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote: > > It's been a long time since a clean release: >> >> >> >> >> >> Staged site: >> >> http://people.apache.org/~brianf/maven-clean-plugin/index.html

Re: [VOTE] Maven 3.0-alpha-1

2009-01-06 Thread Jason van Zyl
Looks like we're a go. I'll push the release out tomorrow. On 4-Jan-09, at 7:32 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: Hi, This is really to get the ball rolling for Maven 3.x. While I have some gracious guinea pigs who are arduously pummeling this code base I wouldn't recommend anyone use this in produ

Re: [vote] release maven-clean-plugin 2.3 and file-management 1.2.1

2009-01-06 Thread Jason van Zyl
+1 On 6-Jan-09, at 9:27 PM, Brian E. Fox wrote: It's been a long time since a clean release: Staged site: http://people.apache.org/~brianf/maven-clean-plugin/index.html Staged repo: http://people.apache.org/~brianf/staging-repository/ Issues fixed: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/

[vote] release maven-clean-plugin 2.3 and file-management 1.2.1

2009-01-06 Thread Brian E. Fox
It's been a long time since a clean release: Staged site: http://people.apache.org/~brianf/maven-clean-plugin/index.html Staged repo: http://people.apache.org/~brianf/staging-repository/ Issues fixed: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=13905&styleName =Html&p

Re: Doxia Versioning (WAS Preparation of Doxia 1.0-beta-1 release)

2009-01-06 Thread Lukas Theussl
One side remark about the site: for doxia-1.1 (was 1.0-beta-1) we have modified the apt format with the plan to render obsolete the original apt used in maven 2.0.x. If we are going to support and maintain both doxia-1.0 (was alpha branch) and doxia-1.1 then we have to keep both formats docum

Re: Javadoc is back to it's old misbehaving (forking) ways

2009-01-06 Thread Benjamin Bentmann
Brian E. Fox wrote: The trouble is the javadoc goal is bound in the release profile which is getting activated when people do releases. IMO we should put javadoc back the way it was in 2.4 [...] I don't think that r661899 is the cause for the regression and hence it wouldn't make sense to r