Ok, I've merged this over. I haven't deployed the site - I assume Benjamin will
be doing so shortly after adding the 3.0-alpha-4 release notes. The aggregated
release notes for 3.0-alpha-3+ is there too.
Let me know whether there is anything else I can do to help.
Cheers,
Brett
On 16/11/2009,
On 16/11/2009, at 11:38 PM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
> Can't we keep 2.0.10 only in archives ?
> I don't think it is necessary to do some advertisement for it.
> Latest stable is 2.2.1 and latest Alpha/Beta is 3.0-alpha-3
There are apparently some who haven't upgraded to 2.2.x, either due to a buil
+1
Vincent
2009/11/12 Mark Hobson :
> Hi,
>
> The big new feature in this release is an upgrade to Checkstyle 5.0,
> which brings Java 5 compatibility.
>
> We solved 6 issues:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11127&version=15336
>
> There are still a couple of issues l
I'm fried at the moment, but I'll take a look tomorrow night and try
to comment on Wednesday.
On 2009-11-16, at 11:10 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
I have reviewed the changeset made in the MNG-3004 branch. I don't
know
if the community will accept my review, but I'll make a stab at it
anyw
+1
Using it in Tycho and works fine.
On 2009-11-17, at 1:02 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Hi,
this is the first release of the plugin testing harness branch for
usage with Maven 3.0.
We solved 2 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11740&version=15444
There a
Sebastian Annies wrote:
Has anyone of you experienced similar behavior or is intended to work
that way?
Maybe there's some bad interaction with the default versions in the
super POM, I'll have a closer look.
Benjamin
-
T
Hi,
this is the first release of the plugin testing harness branch for usage
with Maven 3.0.
We solved 2 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11740&version=15444
There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?
+1, the more the merrier
-Stephen
P.S.
If the 72 hour vote takes this long to collate the results, I might as
well add my vote ;-)
Congrats
2009/11/16 Paul Benedict :
> Congrats Igor!!
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
>> Vote results: +14 : Jason, Jesse, Oliver, Brett, Jo
I have reviewed the changeset made in the MNG-3004 branch. I don't know
if the community will accept my review, but I'll make a stab at it
anyway.
I think the implementation overall looks really good. My only real
question is about the session cloning and session merging. What's the
deal with tha
Congrats Igor!!
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
> Vote results: +14 : Jason, Jesse, Oliver, Brett, John, Herve, Oleg,
> Benjamin, Mark, Arnaud, Lucas, Ralph, Nicolas, Brian
>
> Igor, congratulations, sorry for the delay.
>
>
Vote results: +14 : Jason, Jesse, Oliver, Brett, John, Herve, Oleg,
Benjamin, Mark, Arnaud, Lucas, Ralph, Nicolas, Brian
Igor, congratulations, sorry for the delay.
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> time to close this vote? :)
>
> On 28/07/2009, at 6:52 PM, Jason van Zyl
Hi,
we are using a custom lifecycle and bind the maven-source-plugin in
version 2.1 to the verify phase. In the 2.X branch it always worked
perfectly. But now I tried alpha-3 and 4 and it seems that Maven uses
the maven-source-plugin in version 2.0.4 even though I explicitly
require 2.1 ( 2.0.4 d
Hi,
The vote has passed with the following result:
+1 (binding): Benjamin Bentmann, Jason van Zyl, Olivier Lamy, Arnaud
Héritier
+1 (non-binding): Paul Benedict, Stephen Connolly
I will promote the artifacts to the central repository and continue with
the release. Thanks for all the feedbac
+1
Tested on several projects
Arnaud Héritier
Software Factory Manager
eXo platform - http://www.exoplatform.com
---
http://www.aheritier.net
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On 2009-11-14, at 4:47 AM, Dan Fabulich wrote:
>
>
>> I was waiting until alpha-3 was out to
+1
Arnaud Héritier
Software Factory Manager
eXo platform - http://www.exoplatform.com
---
http://www.aheritier.net
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Benjamin Bentmann <
benjamin.bentm...@udo.edu> wrote:
> Mark Hobson wrote:
>
> Staging repo:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories
Can't we keep 2.0.10 only in archives ?
I don't think it is necessary to do some advertisement for it.
Latest stable is 2.2.1 and latest Alpha/Beta is 3.0-alpha-3
Arnaud Héritier
Software Factory Manager
eXo platform - http://www.exoplatform.com
---
http://www.aheritier.net
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009
On 13/11/2009, at 11:50 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
> Brett Porter wrote:
>
>> I've staged a sample site here:
>> http://people.apache.org/~brett/staged-maven-site/
>
> +1, I like the proposed structure.
>
> Just one minor thing: I believe the JAR/PDF of the site should be listed
> separate
On 16/11/2009, at 9:22 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Then I consider you lost. Go back and read what I wrote. At any rate this is
> not by biggest concern at the moment. If the conditions 1-3 are met in the
> last email and Larry says it's fine, I'm fine.
You top replied to several questions refe
On 2009-11-16, at 10:15 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
You've lost me.
Then I consider you lost. Go back and read what I wrote. At any rate
this is not by biggest concern at the moment. If the conditions 1-3
are met in the last email and Larry says it's fine, I'm fine.
Everything I see at htt
You've lost me.
Everything I see at
http://svn.sonatype.org/m2eclipse/sandbox/trunk/maven-performance-tests/ is
under the ALv2 accdg to headers except:
- the contents of a test maven repository
-
http://svn.sonatype.org/m2eclipse/sandbox/trunk/maven-performance-tests/remoteRepo/
which is a sub
If you can get Larry to sign off on:
1) We going to keep modifying the source as necessary
2) It's EPL and it should be that way because that's where we got it
from
3) And we might want to release it
I'm not going to discuss this ad nauseum because I believe Larry would
say technically it's
I suppose actually OSGI gives more freedom in this issue than current
approaches, since each module basically declares its own exports. So you can
actually have "public" classes within your implementation that are not
exposed.
To me, it seems like the implications of this is that you do not want t
On 16/11/2009, at 7:35 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>> We are likely to make some modifications, if we haven't already, and so
>>> it's easier not to put it here. If we made anything more then minimal
>>> changes we have to back it out.
>>
>> You mean
>> http://svn.sonatype.org/m2eclipse/san
On 2009-11-16, at 9:27 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 16/11/2009, at 7:14 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
The performance framework is EPL, which is not an authorized
license according to our documentation.
You mean org.eclipse.test.performance here?
We ar
We'll be following OSGi standards as ultimately Maven will run in an
OSGi runtime. So whatever best practices are there we will follow as
far as package structure.
On 2009-11-16, at 9:16 AM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
I'm trying to make some further adjustments to the concurrency
features
On 16/11/2009, at 7:14 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
>
> The performance framework is EPL, which is not an authorized license
> according to our documentation.
You mean org.eclipse.test.performance here?
> We are likely to make some modifications, if we h
I'm trying to make some further adjustments to the concurrency features
proposed to MNG-3004. I have read all the faq's and the
maven coding standard. This is probably an old can of worms, so I'll try to
keep this question simple:
It seems to me like the predominant standard for inner classes in w
http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
The performance framework is EPL, which is not an authorized license
according to our documentation. We are likely to make some
modifications, if we haven't already, and so it's easier not to put it
here. If we made anything more then minimal changes
28 matches
Mail list logo
