Kohsuke has a robot on dev.java.net that sends reminders to people who post
to issues lists telling them that they should not post to the issues list.
I wonder could INFRA provide similar functionality
-Stephen
2009/7/2 Brett Porter
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for picking this up late. I'm pretty sure tha
Hi,
Sorry for picking this up late. I'm pretty sure that's possible, would
you mind filing it in the INFRA JIRA?
On 21/05/2009, at 9:43 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Hi,
given that occasionally users post to issues@ I wonder if it would
be feasible to block any posts to this list if they
Paul,
I made some changes to the Ant Tasks to have the same logic as 2.2 and
3.0 insofar as processing the mirrorOf external:* logic. You want a
patch in JIRA or I can check it in and you can review then. Whatever
you like.
Thanks,
Jason
-
On 1-Jul-09, at 2:54 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Why an abstract class (abstract class
AbstractMavenLifecycleParticipant) and not an interface ?
Matter of preference but generally to help with the evolution of the
implementation.
Perso, I'd prefer to
lifecycleListeners =
container.lookupL
Why an abstract class (abstract class
AbstractMavenLifecycleParticipant) and not an interface ?
Perso, I'd prefer to
lifecycleListeners = container.lookupList( MavenLifecycleParticipant.class );
instead of
lifecycleListeners = container.lookupList(
AbstractMavenLifecycleParticipant.class );
--
As a user... +1
On Jul 1, 2009, at 3:41 PM, John Casey wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
But I get the feeling that those sticking to 2.0.x are "happy" - in
that they've got things working the way they want and probably
won't jump up to further 2.0.x releases, let along 2.2.x. If we put
out a 2.
Jason, I apologize for misspeaking. I meant what Brian said: the
"affected" version should stay the same. It's okay to remove the "Fix"
for version which was altered to 2.2.1
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>
> On 02/07/2009, at 4:06 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> On 1-Jul-09,
Brett Porter wrote:
But I get the feeling that those sticking to 2.0.x are "happy" - in that
they've got things working the way they want and probably won't jump up
to further 2.0.x releases, let along 2.2.x. If we put out a 2.0.11
release and say "this is the last, barring critical issues -
On 02/07/2009, at 4:06 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 1-Jul-09, at 10:52 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
It's logical to believe that 2.1 and 2.2 contain almost all the
unresolved bugs of 2.0.x. Since 2.0.x is no longer being supported,
there's no good reason to keep them attached to that version. You
FYI, you can still build 1.4 projects safely in Maven 2.2.0:
http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-building-jdk14-on-jdk15.html
-john
Christian Schulte wrote:
Paul Benedict schrieb:
My preference is to release 2.0.11 as it is now (37 issues fixed). The
remaining issues should move to 2.2.
On 1-Jul-09, at 10:52 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
It's logical to believe that 2.1 and 2.2 contain almost all the
unresolved bugs of 2.0.x. Since 2.0.x is no longer being supported,
there's no good reason to keep them attached to that version. You only
want to backport the issues that will get fixi
Christian Schulte wrote:
> Paul Benedict schrieb:
>> My preference is to release 2.0.11 as it is now (37 issues fixed). The
>> remaining issues should move to 2.2.1. If critical bugs remain in
>> 2.0.x, then build build a 2.0.12 issue list as people require it.
>>
>> - Paul
>>
>
> +1
>
> 2.0.x
It's logical to believe that 2.1 and 2.2 contain almost all the
unresolved bugs of 2.0.x. Since 2.0.x is no longer being supported,
there's no good reason to keep them attached to that version. You only
want to backport the issues that will get fixing -- not potential
fixes UNLESS the issue is excl
On 02/07/2009, at 3:38 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 1-Jul-09, at 9:47 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
Ok, for starters I've moved all the open issues from 2.0.11 to
2.2.1 and am now going through them to cull them down where possible.
You need to leave the bugs raised against 2.0.x because there
On 1-Jul-09, at 9:47 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
Ok, for starters I've moved all the open issues from 2.0.11 to 2.2.1
and am now going through them to cull them down where possible.
You need to leave the bugs raised against 2.0.x because there is no
way around the fact that 2.0.x is going to
Ok, for starters I've moved all the open issues from 2.0.11 to 2.2.1
and am now going through them to cull them down where possible.
I've also confirmed that the ITs pass for 2.0.11-SNAPSHOT as it is.
Once I get the 2.1.x bits cleaned up (per original mail that everyone
seems in favour of),
Paul Benedict schrieb:
> My preference is to release 2.0.11 as it is now (37 issues fixed). The
> remaining issues should move to 2.2.1. If critical bugs remain in
> 2.0.x, then build build a 2.0.12 issue list as people require it.
>
> - Paul
>
+1
2.0.x is the last JDK 1.4 release. Users of the
+1
Paul Benedict wrote:
My preference is to release 2.0.11 as it is now (37 issues fixed). The
remaining issues should move to 2.2.1. If critical bugs remain in
2.0.x, then build build a 2.0.12 issue list as people require it.
- Paul
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Brian
My preference is to release 2.0.11 as it is now (37 issues fixed). The
remaining issues should move to 2.2.1. If critical bugs remain in
2.0.x, then build build a 2.0.12 issue list as people require it.
- Paul
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Brian Fox wrote:
>
>> Yeah get
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.
The point is, in 6 months nobody knows axaclty anymore what is in
2.0.11-SNAPSHOT. That will actually stop any bugfix release ever.
- Jörg
I think you were the last to work on it ;-) so you're probably most
qualified to answer that and/or do the release.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Shane Isbell wrote:
> 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'
I'm -0 on the 2.0.11 release.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> 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
I left the src artifact in place mainly because I misunderstood where it
was coming from. I figured it was generated from the source-jar goal,
not from an assembly descriptor...wasn't thinking too deeply about it,
just assumed we weren't compliant with the recent thread on voting
sources vs. bi
> to have the svnkit version
> available in central repo.
afaik there is a problem with the svnkit license [1] which seems not compatible
to ASL because it requires loyalties if used commercially (even if not used
directly but as part of e.g. maven).
So there is no legal way to switch to svnki
24 matches
Mail list logo
