Re: svn commit: r767294 - in /maven/components/trunk: maven-model-builder/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/model/processors/ maven-project/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/project/ maven-project/src/test/

2009-04-21 Thread Brett Porter
On 22/04/2009, at 7:09 AM, sisb...@apache.org wrote: Author: sisbell Date: Tue Apr 21 21:09:06 2009 New Revision: 767294 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=767294&view=rev Log: [MNG-0731] - The distribution mng layout element was not being copied in the model. Likewise, the leading 0

Re: svn commit: r767266 - in /maven/components/trunk: maven-model-builder/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/model/processors/ maven-model-builder/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/project/ maven-project/src

2009-04-21 Thread Brett Porter
You might want to adjust the issue key on this, I'm guessing it's from it0051, but those earlier IT numbers just indicated sequence of authorship, not a related issue (MNG-51 is something completely different). Cheers, Brett On 22/04/2009, at 5:49 AM, sisb...@apache.org wrote: Author: si

Re: [Fwd: Weird property replacement issue in Maven 2.1.0]

2009-04-21 Thread Benjamin Bentmann
Reinhard Nägele wrote: Why is such version transformation done at all? What's the reasoning behind it? http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3057 Usually, you would expect that your pom remains unchanged. I believe we should probably at least leave those POMs untouched that don't originate

Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml

2009-04-21 Thread Arnaud HERITIER
+1 for the branch if someone wants to work on it. Arnaud On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Brett Porter wrote: > While I'd be ok with updating the base requirement, starting to make a lot > of changes to generify things should probably be kept to 2.2.x (I've seen > bugs introduced in other projec

Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml

2009-04-21 Thread Arnaud HERITIER
I know and I was agree but we didn't do it. We didn't warn our users when we published 2.1.0 (or I didn't see it). Arnaud On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Brian Fox wrote: > We previously already voted that 2.1.x would require 1.5. > > > Arnaud HERITIER wrote: > >>Bumping the Java requiremen

Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml

2009-04-21 Thread Brian Fox
We previously already voted that 2.1.x would require 1.5. Arnaud HERITIER wrote: Bumping the Java requirement doesn't feel like a maintenance release IMHO. Therefore, shouldn't we bump the Maven version to 2.2 as well and rename the branch or create a new one? +1 It's a too big change for

Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml

2009-04-21 Thread Brett Porter
While I'd be ok with updating the base requirement, starting to make a lot of changes to generify things should probably be kept to 2.2.x (I've seen bugs introduced in other projects in the process due to casting, interface breakage, etc). I agree with John's tweeted intent to keep 2.1.1 to

Re: svn commit: r766940 - in /maven/pom: tags/apache-5/pom.xml trunk/maven/pom.xml

2009-04-21 Thread Brian Fox
That was an error, I'll roll it back. Dennis Lundberg wrote: Brian, why are you modifying the pom.xml file under the "apache-5" tag? That has already been released and shouldn't be tampered with... bri...@apache.org wrote: Author: brianf Date: Tue Apr 21 01:55:16 2009 New Revision: 766940

Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml

2009-04-21 Thread Arnaud HERITIER
> > >> > Bumping the Java requirement doesn't feel like a maintenance release IMHO. > Therefore, shouldn't we bump the Maven version to 2.2 as well and rename the > branch or create a new one? > > +1 It's a too big change for a bug fix release Arnaud

[RESULT] [VOTE] Release Maven source plugin version 2.1

2009-04-21 Thread Paul Gier
Hi, The vote has passed with the following result : +1 (binding): John Casey, Benjamin Bentmann, Jason van Zyl, Brian Fox +1 (non binding): Paul Gier Thanks for the feedback and votes! I will promote the artifacts to the central repo and continue with the release. Paul --

Re: svn commit: r767207 - /maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml

2009-04-21 Thread Benjamin Bentmann
Hi John, Author: jdcasey Date: Tue Apr 21 16:24:42 2009 New Revision: 767207 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=767207&view=rev Log: update to require java 1.5. Modified: maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml Modified: maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml URL: http://

Re: [VOTE] Release Maven source plugin version 2.1

2009-04-21 Thread Brian Fox
+1 Paul Gier wrote: I still need on more vote on this before I can release it. So far we have: +1 (binding): John Casey, Benjamin Bentmann Thanks! Paul Gier wrote: Hi, We solved 10 issues: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11147&styleName=Html&version=13830 Ther

Re: [VOTE] Release Maven source plugin version 2.1

2009-04-21 Thread Jason van Zyl
+1 On 21-Apr-09, at 1:20 PM, Paul Gier wrote: I still need on more vote on this before I can release it. So far we have: +1 (binding): John Casey, Benjamin Bentmann Thanks! Paul Gier wrote: Hi, We solved 10 issues: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11147&styleName=H

Re: [VOTE] Release Maven source plugin version 2.1

2009-04-21 Thread Paul Gier
I still need on more vote on this before I can release it. So far we have: +1 (binding): John Casey, Benjamin Bentmann Thanks! Paul Gier wrote: Hi, We solved 10 issues: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11147&styleName=Html&version=13830 There are still a couple o

Re: svn commit: r766940 - in /maven/pom: tags/apache-5/pom.xml trunk/maven/pom.xml

2009-04-21 Thread Dennis Lundberg
Brian, why are you modifying the pom.xml file under the "apache-5" tag? That has already been released and shouldn't be tampered with... bri...@apache.org wrote: > Author: brianf > Date: Tue Apr 21 01:55:16 2009 > New Revision: 766940 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=766940&view=rev > Lo

[VOTE] Release Maven Archetype plugin version 2.0-alpha-5

2009-04-21 Thread Raphaël Piéroni
Hi, We solved 11 issues: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=14254&styleName=Html&projectId=11095 There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=11095&status=1 Staging repo: https://repository.apache.org/co

ArtifactMetadataSource.retrieveAvailableVersions and only repositories

2009-04-21 Thread Stephen Connolly
Came across this one while investigating http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MVERSIONS-19 This is a strange one... in versions-maven-plugin: http://mojo.codehaus.org/versions-maven-plugin/xref/org/codehaus/mojo/versions/api/DefaultVersionsHelper.html#186 We ask the ArtifactMetadataSource to give us

Re: [vote] release apache parent 6 and maven parent 12

2009-04-21 Thread Brian Fox
Jochen, the release plugin is configured to activate this new profile automatically during perform, so that should answer both of your questions:: 1) it doesn't need an activation of it's own and 2) the name is irrelevant so it doesn't matter what we name it because noone has to activate it exp