Hi,
I think the only committer will have a look at this :-)
But the main issue will be to have the svnkit version available in central repo.
Thanks,
--
Olivier
2009/7/1 Brett Porter :
>
> On 01/07/2009, at 4:53 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
>
>> Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>>> [INFO] Cannot get the rev
Hi,
John, do you want to do the honours in sending the announce@ /
annou...@maven / us...@maven mail to announce the release?
For the record, these are the other things I picked up today. I'll
look at making sure we have this all documented for the future:
- uploaded the files to www.apach
On 01/07/2009, at 6:01 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Brett Porter
wrote:
On 01/07/2009, at 1:47 AM, nicolas de loof wrote:
I'm also fine with this, just would like to avoid some "EOL" tag
on 2.0
that
may be considered as lack of support by some corporate users u
I'm wondering if there are any plans to release the maven-toolchains-plugin
. It looks like it's still as a 1.0-snapshot. I've got a need for
maven-toolchain and don't want to duplicate the plugin.
Thanks,
Shane
On 01/07/2009, at 4:53 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
[INFO] Cannot get the revision information from the scm repository :
Exception while executing SCM command.
svn: '/Users/brett/scm/maven/maven-2.1.x/maven-core' is not a
working copy
OK, as the javasvn provider seems
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>
> On 01/07/2009, at 1:47 AM, nicolas de loof wrote:
>
>> I'm also fine with this, just would like to avoid some "EOL" tag on 2.0
>> that
>> may be considered as lack of support by some corporate users using (old)
>> maven releases
>
> Sure,
Brett Porter wrote:
[INFO] Cannot get the revision information from the scm repository :
Exception while executing SCM command.
svn: '/Users/brett/scm/maven/maven-2.1.x/maven-core' is not a working copy
OK, as the javasvn provider seems not to work as reliable as the regular
svn provider, I
This vote has passed with the following results:
+1 (binding): John, Benjamin, Brett, Lukas
+1 (non-binding): Nicolas
I'll promote the artifacts now.
Thanks,
-john
John Casey wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to call a vote for the release of Maven Wagon 1.0-beta-6. I've
opted not to shoot for a 1.0 re
This vote has passed with the following votes:
+1 (binding): John, Benjamin, Brett, Brian, Lukas
+1 (non-binding): Nicolas
I'll promote the artifacts and deploy the site changes.
Thanks,
-john
John Casey wrote:
Hi,
I've resolved the issue with plexus-interpolation, reverified the ITs,
and
On 01/07/2009, at 1:47 AM, nicolas de loof wrote:
I'm also fine with this, just would like to avoid some "EOL" tag on
2.0 that
may be considered as lack of support by some corporate users using
(old)
maven releases
Sure, we can use a different name. All I meant EOL to mean here was
tha
I'll write this up in the site docs, but for now I'll explain here:
There are a couple of reasons for moving 2.1 => 2.2 directly. First,
we've moved to a requirement on JDK 1.5. While we had decided to do this
for 2.1.0, we never enforced it or changed the Maven binaries
themselves. To keep fr
I'm also fine with this, just would like to avoid some "EOL" tag on 2.0 that
may be considered as lack of support by some corporate users using (old)
maven releases
2009/6/30 Christian Gruber
> No arguments with that statement.
>
> Christian.
>
>
> On Jun 30, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
No arguments with that statement.
Christian.
On Jun 30, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
That's all fine, I'm just saying that 2.0.10 has been out for a while
now without any serious show stoppers that I'm aware of. 2.0.9 and
2.0.10 are very stable, I would rather see effort spent on the 2.
That's all fine, I'm just saying that 2.0.10 has been out for a while
now without any serious show stoppers that I'm aware of. 2.0.9 and
2.0.10 are very stable, I would rather see effort spent on the 2.2.x
line instead.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Christian
Gruber wrote:
> +1 to Nicholas' as
+1 to Nicholas' assessment. Too many firms I've worked with won't be
changing to 2.1/2.2 until it's been in production release for several
months, and probably won't trust it. They'll need critical bug
support on 2.0. We just need a window for migration, that's all.
cheers,
Christian.
O
Brett Porter wrote:
- remove the 2.1.1 version from JIRA and remove the 2.1.x SVN branch -
>
+1
- promote the 2.2.0 as the stable release on the site and push all bugfix
> work towards 2.2.x
>
+1
- a 2.0.11 release to get those sticking to 2.0.x the 37 fixes already
> committed there.
>
+1
-
Personally, I will not be upgrading to Maven 2.2 until the next patch
release. I am skipping 2.1 because there is no 2.1.1. Being
conservative in my approach, I find it just too risky inside an
organization to bring in upgrades without at least one patch release.
Will anyone yet document justifica
On 29-Jun-09, at 7:54 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
Yeah get rid of it. Is there really demand for the fixed in 2.0.11? I
feel like it's EOL now.
I would guess the vast majority of users are still using the 2.0.x
line because the 2.1.x and 2.2.x lines have come out very quickly and
users will prob
Gefeliciteerd!
I was waiting for this :-).
2009/6/29 Lukas Theussl :
>
> The Maven team is pleased to announce the release of the Maven PDF Plugin,
> version 1.0.
>
> This plug-in allows you to generate a PDF version of your project's
> documentation.
>
> http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-pdf
19 matches
Mail list logo
