ping!
Vincent
2009/2/28 Vincent Siveton :
> Hi,
>
> This is a maintenance release due to MPIR-146.
>
> We solved 6 issues:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=14325&styleName=Html&projectId=11142&Create=Create
>
> There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
> http://ji
Hi John,
2009/3/2 John Casey :
> Hi,
>
> I know we've talked a bit about this already, but I'm still left with some
> questions. The most important of which is:
>
> What exactly is the plan for Doxia and Maven 2.1.0? Who's doing what to push
> this along?
As you probably know, the plan is here [1
+1
(checked the source code changes and tested it by generating the Doxia
site)
On 01/03/2009, at 3:27 AM, Vincent Siveton wrote:
Hi,
This is a maintenance release due to MPIR-146.
We solved 6 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=14325&styleName=Html&projectId=
>I'm venting because I'm a little frustrated that this conversation came
>up back in August and here we are talking about it again...and again,
we
>have no released version of Doxia to consume. So, we're in a position
of
>rushing out a release of Doxia so we can push an unproven dependency
>in
Hi,
I know we've talked a bit about this already, but I'm still left with
some questions. The most important of which is:
What exactly is the plan for Doxia and Maven 2.1.0? Who's doing what to
push this along?
I'm looking at the recent history of our attempt to get a Maven 2.1.0
release r
+1
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Hi,
Another step in the Doxia Release Plan:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Doxia+Release+Plan
We solved 3 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11761&styleName=Html&version=14950
The most notable fix is
http://jira.codehaus.org/br
Yeah double it up to reduce the overall timeline.
-Original Message-
From: Brett Porter [mailto:br...@porterclan.net] On Behalf Of Brett
Porter
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 5:57 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: decision on Doxia for 2.1.0?
On 02/03/2009, at 9:45 PM, Vincent Sive
On 02/03/2009, at 9:45 PM, Vincent Siveton wrote:
2009/3/1, Jason van Zyl :
Why is Doxia dependent on MPIR?
We can't make mvn site due to MPIR-146.
Ah, sorry for the out of sequence reply. I think it's ok to stage/
publish sites using the staged release of MPIR so that version is in
the
From what I can see, it doesn't. Vincent - are you just sequencing
these? If the testing for 1.1 is done that needs to get out, since as
Brian said it's the only issue in front of a 2.1.0 release now.
Thanks,
Brett
On 02/03/2009, at 2:26 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Why is Doxia dependent on M
2009/3/1, Jason van Zyl :
> Why is Doxia dependent on MPIR?
We can't make mvn site due to MPIR-146.
Cheers,
Vincent
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apac
Yeah, it sounds right. The ids should definitely be normalized when
reading them so that matching classifier/extension combos map back to
the same types.
- Brett
On 02/03/2009, at 11:43 AM, Brian E. Fox wrote:
Seems logical to me. I don't know why there are these special mappings
in the fi
Brian E. Fox wrote:
Seems logical to me. I don't know why there are these special mappings
in the first place.
Not sure either, possibly to control the addedToClasspath flag of the
artifact handler [0] (which is false for java-source but true for
javadoc...).
Sources is the other one tha
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
For me we have to propose a new minor version as soon as we add a new
feature.
+1. Just for the new filtering support (BTW, looking at the 20 votes on
the issue I believe some users would call that "a significant feature
set addition") alone a bunch of new goal paramet
For me we have to propose a new minor version as soon as we add a new
feature.I think it's a problem we have to think that we need to add many
things to be able to do a new minor version.
We should better release often with less features than to wait X monthes to
have a new big release with many ne
Hello,
I am writing some custom plugin code that also needs some SCM
operations, in my case needing support for CVS and SVN. For this, I am
using the Maven SCM subsystem with the providers. I am running a
status command, but for the CVS provider this seems to run a "cvs
update" command instead of
I tend to agree with you, especially when it's really new features. On the
other hand, it all boils down to how people choose Jira issue type for the
issues they're creating. Switching to 2.4 would mean a significant features
set addition which is not clearly the case. Support of JBoss5 and some
co
16 matches
Mail list logo
