Yeah lets go for a release on this.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 5:57 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> Any idea when another try might be feasible? I'm updating a bunch of
> project's builds, having the completely built-in source assembly would be
> pretty handy.
>
> many thanks
> david jencks
>
> On Dec 10
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Dan Tran wrote:
> It is interesting that 3.0 apha x already drops this feature even thou
> the discussion ( a while back ) asserted it would be deprecated in 3.0
> and remove in 3.1
>
I would characterize it as this feature hasn't yet been re-implemented
in 3.x.
Any idea when another try might be feasible? I'm updating a bunch of
project's builds, having the completely built-in source assembly would
be pretty handy.
many thanks
david jencks
On Dec 10, 2009, at 1:40 PM, John Casey wrote:
I've withdrawn the tag for this vote. We can try again later
The metadata is missing lots of information, among which is the classifier.
On 2009-12-23, at 2:35 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> I thought it was discovered Maven 2/3 does not incorporate the
> artifact type in the snapshot metadata. So if you deployed artifact X
> type POM and artifact X type JAR,
I thought it was discovered Maven 2/3 does not incorporate the
artifact type in the snapshot metadata. So if you deployed artifact X
type POM and artifact X type JAR, the latest snapshot metadata
dictates the type. Wasn't an enhancement already requested?
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Jason van
On 2009-12-23, at 11:28 AM, Dan Tran wrote:
> It is interesting that 3.0 apha x already drops this feature even thou
> the discussion ( a while back ) asserted it would be deprecated in 3.0
> and remove in 3.1
>
If you care that much and commit to supporting it put it back.
> However, as I hav
It is interesting that 3.0 apha x already drops this feature even thou
the discussion ( a while back ) asserted it would be deprecated in 3.0
and remove in 3.1
However, as I have complained before ;-), this feature is crucially
needed for multi platforms ( native, c/c++) build of the same project.
On 2009-12-23, at 11:21 AM, fabrice.mercier1 wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Why do you think it is a bad practice ? I am currently trouble with the
> choice of setting it to true or false.
>
You cannot uniquely identify one build from the next and just many other
potentially bad practices.
> Fabrice
>
>
Hi
Why do you think it is a bad practice ? I am currently trouble with the
choice of setting it to true or false.
Fabrice
Jason van Zyl-5 wrote:
>
> I think it can be in the same vein as the no versions for plugins. Not
> a very good idea and potentially harmful.
>
> We put it in, deprecat
+1
--
Olivier
2009/12/21 Benjamin Bentmann :
> Hi,
>
> We solved 9 issues:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11131&version=14498
>
> There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=11131&status=1
>
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
