Can't we create a 2.1.1 branch only if required by some blocker issue ?
2009/4/30 Paul Benedict
> Are we sure we don't want a 2.1.1 to just get rid of some regressions?
> 2.2.0 sounds good with the reasons stated, but it just seems goofy
> 2.1.0 would have no point release after that.
>
> On Wed
Are we sure we don't want a 2.1.1 to just get rid of some regressions?
2.2.0 sounds good with the reasons stated, but it just seems goofy
2.1.0 would have no point release after that.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Benjamin Bentmann
wrote:
> John Casey wrote:
>
>> So, I propose the following:
I still build java 1.3 projects (Websphere 5.0.2) with a JDK6_u13.
I' use the maven-compiler parameter to point on a Java1.3
JRE rt.jar, to avoid reference to unsupported classes/mehod. This is the
simplier/safer way AFAIK. Users only have to define a property
in settings.xml (and have a Java1.3
I am getting lots and lots of e-mails. Not sure How to unsubscribe.
Please help
_Durga
On Apr 29, 2009, at 3:27 PM, Olivier Lamy (JIRA) wrote:
[ http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-418?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=
I think this is the same as those on 1.3 now... you set source and
target and either use animal sniffer, or you go through the bigger
configuration step of an external JDK (using the current config
options available).
Getting toolchains support in the plugins out would certainly be a
good
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 8:23 PM, John Casey wrote:
> Assuming we require JDK 1.5 for Maven 2.2.0, I don't know how to tell users
> to build projects that require JDK 1.4, using a JDK 1.4 compiler. From what
> I've been able to find, the toolchains stuff isn't used by any released
> plugin version
I just had a disquieting thought:
Assuming we require JDK 1.5 for Maven 2.2.0, I don't know how to tell
users to build projects that require JDK 1.4, using a JDK 1.4 compiler.
From what I've been able to find, the toolchains stuff isn't used by
any released plugin versions, which means we'd ha
Yes I can produce one tomorrow.
Arnaud
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:17 PM, John Casey wrote:
> Do you happen to have a test case I can use to prod at this problem a
> little bit? I'm working on a mockup of the scenario you talk about, but I'm
> not certain I understand it well enough to reproduce
Lukas Theussl wrote:
Raphael has reported the same problem with the archetype-plugin [1]. I
have also found some hints that it might be due to lagging sync of the
eu svn mirror so I switched back to https://svn.apache.org/ but still
get the same error.
AFAIK, since recently svn.apache.org is
Do you happen to have a test case I can use to prod at this problem a
little bit? I'm working on a mockup of the scenario you talk about, but
I'm not certain I understand it well enough to reproduce.
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
yesA default-profil in my activeProfiles
In this profil I have 2 reposi
> My vote does not really count here, but Sun aggressively supports
> Mercurial in NetBeans. Based on reviews, Mercurial seemed to initially have
> a technical edge whereas GIT had a loyal following. They do compete
> aggressively and GIT has fixed many of its issues.
>
> NetBeans works better wi
My vote does not really count here, but Sun aggressively supports
Mercurial in NetBeans. Based on reviews, Mercurial seemed to initially have
a technical edge whereas GIT had a loyal following. They do compete
aggressively and GIT has fixed many of its issues.
NetBeans works better with our com
12 matches
Mail list logo
