Sweet.
On 2009-12-30, at 11:21 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> I'm done reviewing 2.2.2 - all those issues can stay there. I'll work through
> 2.3.x, 2.2.x and 2.x as time permits (and I'm reviewing any you bump to 3.x
> that might be addressable there, though I don't expect any - keeping it to a
>
I'm done reviewing 2.2.2 - all those issues can stay there. I'll work through
2.3.x, 2.2.x and 2.x as time permits (and I'm reviewing any you bump to 3.x
that might be addressable there, though I don't expect any - keeping it to a
small number will help ship it).
On 30/12/2009, at 11:48 AM, Jas
On 31/12/2009, at 12:20 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> can we remember to update the "do not use this wiki" wiki to point to cwiki
> as well (wiki.apache.org)
I'll go one better: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-2408
- Brett
--
Brett Porter
br...@apache.org
http://brettporter.wordpr
can we remember to update the "do not use this wiki" wiki to point to
cwiki as well (wiki.apache.org)
Sent from my [rhymes with tryPod] ;-)
On 30 Dec 2009, at 23:59, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Sure, not a problem.
On 2009-12-30, at 6:46 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 2009-
On 30/12/2009, at 2:19 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
> Yep... would it be ok to just fold all those into a "3.1" version and split
> that into buckets later when it is being worked on, to reduce the noise?
I just did that since there was only one issue in 3.1 (a dupe) and none in
3.1.alpha.2.
- Bre
Sure, not a problem.
On 2009-12-30, at 6:46 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> On 2009-12-30, at 6:34 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/12/2009, at 2:11 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>
Arnaud,
If you really want to help to let people see what's going to be plan
On 31/12/2009, at 10:46 AM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> On 2009-12-30, at 6:34 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/12/2009, at 2:11 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>
Arnaud,
If you really want to help to let people see what's going to be planned
then help
Jason van Zyl wrote:
> On 2009-12-30, at 6:34 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>> On 31/12/2009, at 2:11 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>> Arnaud,
>>>
>>> If you really want to help to let people see what's going to be planned
>>> then help cleanup this Confluence page:
>>>
>>> http://docs.codehaus.org/di
On 2009-12-30, at 6:34 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
> On 31/12/2009, at 2:11 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> Arnaud,
>>
>> If you really want to help to let people see what's going to be planned then
>> help cleanup this Confluence page:
>>
>> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Home
>>
>> and
>
I will be out of the office starting 31.12.2009 and will not return until
11.01.2010.
I have no acces to my mailbox, I will reply to your message upon return.
For urgent issues please contact my colleagues:
Elena Tonoyan / Administration - elen...@tumlare.com
Alexandra Sukhova / Administration -
On 31/12/2009, at 2:11 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Arnaud,
>
> If you really want to help to let people see what's going to be planned then
> help cleanup this Confluence page:
>
> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Home
>
> and
>
> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/All+Proposals
>
>
On 2009-12-30, at 1:03 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On 2009-12-30, at 12:03 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> I don't know why you are trying to shut off this discussion.
>>
>
> I am busy trying to do work that's necessary for 3.0.
>
>> Of course we realize 3.0 is what it is.
>
> No, I don't th
Olivier/Arnaud,
You guys seemed to be interested in the Jetty Wagon. The Jetty Client deals
with all the parallelization, and we've tried to patch everything in one Wagon
to make a decent overall implementation. Jesse has been involved from the start
so he can answer any questions as well. Shou
On 2009-12-30, at 12:03 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> I don't know why you are trying to shut off this discussion.
>
I am busy trying to do work that's necessary for 3.0.
> Of course we realize 3.0 is what it is.
No, I don't think you do. If you did you would be helping more with 3.0 instead
of
Seems like you are looking for an osgi sort of function?
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Goers [mailto:ralph.go...@dslextreme.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 9:03 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.2.2 soon?
I don't know why you are trying to shut off this discussio
I don't know why you are trying to shut off this discussion.
Of course we realize 3.0 is what it is. I'm not looking for 3.0 to sit in limbo
longer. At the same time, I have wanted the feature below for years. It wasn't
doable with the current code base. If 3.0 changes that then great, but if
I'm working off this query if anyone wants to lend a hand:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?pid=10500&status=1&status=3&status=4&fixfor=13143&fixfor=14504&fixfor=16088&fixfor=16089&fixfor=14118&fixfor=16090&fixfor=16087&fixfor=15103&fixfor=16094&fixfor=16093&fixfor=15565&fixfor=
For folks that want to do some forward looking research and reading on Guice
and OSGi here are a few resources.
Of course, you can probably find all the standard Guice resources yourself. But
ultimately we are going to be interested in the most agnostic form of
dependency injection so I'd like
Arnaud,
If you really want to help to let people see what's going to be planned then
help cleanup this Confluence page:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Home
and
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/All+Proposals
There are bits and pieces of all that you've talked about below and if w
On 2009-12-30, at 3:57 AM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think there is no change in maven 3.0 about settings.xml ?
There are no changes in settings.xml. There will be no changes in settings.xml
for 3.0 at this point.
> Actually there are several problems (from my point of view) :
> *
Same thing, please focus on 3.0.
On 2009-12-30, at 3:22 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Dec 29, 2009, at 5:45 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't agree with Ralph that there needs to be a general POM extension
>> mechanism. It's going to happen primarily inside plugins.
>>
>
> So what y
Seriously, please focus on 3.0.
On 2009-12-30, at 1:55 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Jason,
>
> Are you suggesting that the elements of the POM body might belong to
> each respective plugin? An academic example, but to get the point
> across:
>
>
>
>
> default ...
>
>1.4
On 2009-12-30, at 1:48 AM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2009-12-29, at 8:05 PM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
>>
> What I recall discussing with Brian at ApacheCon was having a new
>> project
descriptor but making sure that
The Maven team is pleased to announce the release of the Apache Parent
POM, version 7.
This POM provides a base configuration for ASF projects build with
Apache Maven [0]. Besides some updated plugin versions, the most
interesting change in this version of the POM is the inclusion of a
configurat
Hi,
We solved 11 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11130&version=12304&styleName=Html
There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=11130&status=1
Staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/co
Hi,
The vote has passed with the following result:
+1 (binding): Benjamin Bentmann, Dennis Lundberg, Olivier Lamy, Arnaud
Héritier, Hervé Boutemy, Vincent Siveton, Brett Porter
I will promote the artifacts to the central repository and continue with
the release.
Benjamin
---
Hi,
I think there is no change in maven 3.0 about settings.xml ?
Actually there are several problems (from my point of view) :
* Mirrors don't support something to catch all releases repo or all
snasphots repo.
** It creates a problem because you have to use a unique group in repo
managers
Let's go !
BTW If you have time between changing nappy :-))
--
Olivier
2009/12/30 Stephen Connolly :
> so am I good to go tomorrow morning?
>
> Sent from my [rhymes with tryPod] ;-)
>
> On 29 Dec 2009, at 22:02, ol...@apache.org wrote:
>
>> Author: olamy
>> Date: Tue Dec 29 22:02:56 2009
>> New R
On Dec 29, 2009, at 5:45 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>
> I don't agree with Ralph that there needs to be a general POM extension
> mechanism. It's going to happen primarily inside plugins.
>
So what you are saying is that one extension point is in the plugin
configuration. That's fine but it
29 matches
Mail list logo
