fyi:
- maven password encryption uses SHA-256 and switching to SHA-512 could
be done using optional encrypted string attributes to ensure decryption
of the existing passwords. SHA-256 is already SHA2 family and has not
been cracked yet, so we can wait. Main question was availability of
SHA-51
This looks like a problem in the httpclient-driven http wagon.
Dominic Mitchell wrote:
On 5 May 2009, at 01:02, John Casey wrote:
After finding and cleaning up some code that seems to be tainted
during some of our efforts at generifying the codebase, we've respun a
new release candidate.
If
Is there any way to activate such a profile by detecting m2eclipse is
running (using some property) ?
2009/5/6 Igor Fedorenko
> This is correct, m2e 0.9.8 uses "old" 2.1.0 embedder from before 2.1->3.0
> version rename. We plan to update embedder to "real" 3.0 in 0.9.9.
>
> For now, you should b
On 5 May 2009, at 01:02, John Casey wrote:
After finding and cleaning up some code that seems to be tainted
during some of our efforts at generifying the codebase, we've respun
a new release candidate.
If you have time, please give it a whirl:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositor
This is correct, m2e 0.9.8 uses "old" 2.1.0 embedder from before
2.1->3.0 version rename. We plan to update embedder to "real" 3.0 in 0.9.9.
For now, you should be able to move enforcer execution to a profile,
which is not activated in m2e.
--
Regards,
Igor
nicolas de loof wrote:
Hi,
As I'm
not an expert on m2eclipse but netbeans is also using a quite old version of
2.1-SNAPSHOT (from last June to be precise). The current trunk is not there
yet (and since it will take some effort to migrate I will wait for betas as
least).
I've got the same issue reported (not with enforcer, but the
Hi,
As I'm using enforcer plugin to check maven version is >= 2.1.0 I just
noticed m2eclipse 0.9.8 embedded maven still reports version 2.1-SNAPSHOT
I may be wrong but AFAIK embeddedMaven is build from trunk (3.0-SNAPSHOT) -
does this mean m2eclipse uses a some-months-old version ?
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
> For artifact checksums? They are not a security measure, so I don't think
> increasing their length is of benefit.
>
> Having read the same mail I'm guessing you did, it made me reflect and we
> probably should have kept using md5 for efficienc
Le mardi 05 mai 2009 23:46:23, Brian Fox a écrit :
> What options are being passed to the release invocation? It's using -f
> which seems to be invalid.
I used the following instruction for prepare :
mvn -B release:prepare -DreleaseVersion=0.4.0 -DdevelopmentVersion=0.5.0-
SNAPSHOT
And for the
