Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Maven 3.0-alpha-4

> I searched on the asf repository [1], [2] but I didn't found it : > > [1] > https://repository.apache.org/index.html#nexus-search;quick~org.apache.maven > [2] > http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-ibiblio-rsync-repositor

Re: Using a specific plugin version in custom lifecycle

> Apparently, this change would make custom lifecycle mappings that don't > specify plugin versions subject to automatic plugin version resolution as in > Maven 2.0.8- unless the consuming POM (or its parents) locked the version > down. On the hand, Maven 3 will report this situation as a prominent

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Maven 3.0-alpha-4

Gilles Scokart wrote: Are you publishing this to an apache maven repository or did you publish it directly into central? I see it at https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.0-alpha-4/ as found by https://repository.apache.org/index.html#ne

Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Release Apache Maven 3.0-alpha-4

Are you publishing this to an apache maven repository or did you publish it directly into central? I searched on the asf repository [1], [2] but I didn't found it : [1] https://repository.apache.org/index.html#nexus-search;quick~org.apache.maven

Re: [VOTE] Release Maven Checkstyle plugin version 2.4

Hi, The vote has passed with the following result : +1 (binding): Arnaud HERITIER, Benjamin Bentmann, Hervé BOUTEMY, Olivier Lamy, Vincent Siveton +1 (non binding): nicolas de loof I will promote the artifacts to the central repo. Mark 2009/11/17 Vincent Siveton : > +1 > > Vincent > > 2009/11/

Maven Embedder thread safety

[REPOSTING WITH A SUBJECT ON THE SUBJECT FIELD, sorry for the repost] Hi all. I've already posted the questions below on the Maven users list, but it was suggested that I post them to the Maven developer's list, so here goes : I'm using Maven Embedder 3.0-alpha-2 to execute a dependency:resolve g

Re: comitting for SCM-480

we are doing it anyway :) Regards, Siarhei On 18 Nov 2009 11:22, "Jason van Zyl" wrote: On 2009-11-17, at 6:06 PM, Siarhei Dudzin wrote: > Hi All, > > We are having a problem that is cau... Or you could test it first :-) Best regards, > Siarhei Dudzin > Thanks, Jason --

Re: Using a specific plugin version in custom lifecycle

From a user's Point of View it seems only logical to me that the lifecycle defines which versions of the Plugins should Be used. The super pom is no help Von meinem iPod gesendet Am 18.11.2009 um 11:58 schrieb "Benjamin Bentmann" >: Brian Fox wrote: Second, I always subscribe to the the

Re: Using a specific plugin version in custom lifecycle

Brian Fox wrote: Second, I always subscribe to the theory that "closest" wins. [...] I think in this case, the pom is "closer" than the lifecycle and therefore it should win as is happening in the 3.x case. I agree, it's simply a matter of giving the build engineer control over his build. S

Re: comitting for SCM-480

Siarhei, I've committed the fix yesterday, and I'd be happy if you can confirm it works for you. LieGrue, strub --- Jason van Zyl schrieb am Mi, 18.11.2009: > Von: Jason van Zyl > Betreff: Re: comitting for SCM-480 > An: "Maven Developers List" > Datum: Mittwoch, 18. November 2009, 11:21 >

Re: comitting for SCM-480

On 2009-11-17, at 6:06 PM, Siarhei Dudzin wrote: Hi All, We are having a problem that is caused by SCM-480. Actually the patch is already provided. I can see more and more people having issues with that one. Is there a chance of committing the patch? We'd love to test it! Or you could t