There are 511 issues left if you exclude the documentation fix version. Call it
30 minutes an issue on average and that's ~250 man hours. If we could get 10
people in January to do 25 hours (which is a lot for most people) and try and
make it easier for users to validate fixes we might be able t
On 2009-12-28, at 10:34 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> On 29/12/2009, at 1:39 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
>
>> Is there anything pressing that calls for a 2.2.2? The 3.0's are
>> moving along and are quite usable.
>
> I was just thinking of shipping the existing fixes and anything obvious or
> regresse
On 29/12/2009, at 1:39 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
> Is there anything pressing that calls for a 2.2.2? The 3.0's are
> moving along and are quite usable.
I was just thinking of shipping the existing fixes and anything obvious or
regressed in 2.2.1.
On 29/12/2009, at 1:44 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
I think that the 3.x code is far enough along that if anyone is going to do any
work I think that enough work has been done in 3.x to stop working on 2.x.
So much has been fixed, tested and tuned that at this point after using 3.x for
a long time and with the tests that are in place that I'd rea
Lol, I can't imagine anyone diving into the 2.x resolution code again.
Punt them to 3.x
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Then anything I see I will just move to 3.x because I honestly don't think
> anyone is going to fix them in 2.x and the code is too different now to
>
Is there anything pressing that calls for a 2.2.2? The 3.0's are
moving along and are quite usable.
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> John, anything happening here, or reasons not to move forward with releasing?
> I could probably help after 2.0.11 is done.
>
> On 26/12/2009
Then anything I see I will just move to 3.x because I honestly don't think
anyone is going to fix them in 2.x and the code is too different now to
backport any of it.
On 2009-12-28, at 8:13 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> If they are fixed in 3.x, it'd be good to just close them out. Ideally, point
On 29/12/2009, at 9:34 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> maybe I should have mentioned: the jgit-simple was written by me. But I only
> combined fragments of existing code I found in jgit-core (plus Jason and
> Shawn Pearce helped me), so this has also BSD license. Since we host this on
> sonatype, we
If they are fixed in 3.x, it'd be good to just close them out. Ideally, point
them at the issue that resolves them though as superceded / duplicate. Folks
will keep coming across them at a later date searching for something in the 2.x
line.
- Brett
On 28/12/2009, at 8:11 AM, Jason van Zyl wrot
John, anything happening here, or reasons not to move forward with releasing? I
could probably help after 2.0.11 is done.
On 26/12/2009, at 9:34 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> I know the drive for 3.0-alphas are on, and 2.0.10 is baking for a
> release. Will 2.2.2 be revisited soon? If nothing is pr
Igor Fedorenko wrote:
Out of curiosity, what kind of performance difference you get with this
optimization vs without it?
I originally checked this in because it made a huge difference at my
organization. My goal was to reduce the time required to do a "no op"
build.
Our multi-module buil
Igor Fedorenko wrote:
Sorry, I did not mean to sound prescriptive. This is just another
idea you may choose to consider or ignore.
Yeah, I got that :-) My previous short answer was just intended to
express my lack of interest in a long discussion about this topic. The
special handling for PO
but with these optimizations, the jar plugin could decide not to
repackage as all the files it would add have the same size and
timestamp as inside the jar
without these opts such an optimization is of less use
Sent from my [rhymes with tryPod] ;-)
On 28 Dec 2009, at 14:06, Igor Fedorenko
Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Igor Fedorenko wrote:
Out of curiosity, what kind of performance difference you get with this
optimization vs without it?
I did not benchmark this. This is about IO, so pick a module count, an
average artifact size and IO throughput.
From my experience, "feeling"
+1
Do we need to bump maven-site-plugin as well?
Vincent
2009/12/26 Benjamin Bentmann :
> Hi,
>
> Besides updates to some plugin versions, this version of the parent POM
> contains the configuration to create ASF-compliant source distributions to
> finally share those bits with other ASF project
Igor Fedorenko wrote:
Out of curiosity, what kind of performance difference you get with this
optimization vs without it?
I did not benchmark this. This is about IO, so pick a module count, an
average artifact size and IO throughput.
Also, I think implementation should behave the same for
+1
Hervé
- Mail Original -
De: "Arnaud HERITIER"
À: "Maven Developers List"
Envoyé: Lundi 28 Décembre 2009 10h04:58 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Berne /
Rome / Stockholm / Vienne
Objet: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Parent POM 7
+1
Arnaud Héritier
Software Factory Manager
eXo platform
+1 for a canonical POM ordering of elements
we could check it as an enforcer rule (activated by people interested in it).
We need a tool too to help reorder the POM.
Sorry, I don't have time to work on it for the moment, but definetely +1 :)
Regards,
Hervé
- Mail Original -
De: "Paul B
ok, I understand your concern: I'll revert immediately the change in 2.2.x
branch, and let's discuss a little bit to decide if I revert it in 3.x too :)
The good question: what is the gain by this change?
I think the order we, the Maven project, chose one year ago is well thought
after a long ex
+1
Arnaud Héritier
Software Factory Manager
eXo platform - http://www.exoplatform.com
---
http://www.aheritier.net
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> +1
>
> --
> Olivier
>
> 2009/12/26 Benjamin Bentmann :
> > Hi,
> >
> > Besides updates to some plugin versions, this version
If we want to study the impact on performances, I think we have to create a
test case with a project creating wars and ears of several dozen of Mb.
I already saw some projects like that (an EAR of 100Mb with 2 wars of 50Mb).
Arnaud Héritier
Software Factory Manager
eXo platform - http://www.exop
+1
--
Olivier
2009/12/26 Benjamin Bentmann :
> Hi,
>
> Besides updates to some plugin versions, this version of the parent POM
> contains the configuration to create ASF-compliant source distributions to
> finally share those bits with other ASF projects.
>
> Diff to previous version:
> http://sv
22 matches
Mail list logo
