On 07/08/2010, at 1:23 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> Ideally there should be no API leakage from Aether. As part of the plugin API
> we should provide access to whatever resolution functionality we feel is
> necessary to expose and hide Aether. Initially a few attempts are likely
> needed and
On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> On 07/08/2010, at 2:05 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 07/08/2010, at 1:22 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
>>>
I'm not so concerned about confusing users with a beta2 and then a
>>
On 07/08/2010, at 2:05 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
>>
>> On 07/08/2010, at 1:22 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not so concerned about confusing users with a beta2 and then a
>>> beta3, that can be mitigated easily in the announcement. More
+1
On Aug 5, 2010, at 1:59 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> +1
>
> 2010/8/5 Dennis Lundberg :
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is the first release of this plugin. There are no issues in JIRA.
>>
>> If you want to see it in action, it has been configured in a profile
>> called "linkcheck" in the POM for the Maven s
On Aug 6, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> So even though I'm on vacation this week I took the time to get the code from
> git and read the wiki. Now I am even more concerned, even though I have read
> everyone's responses.
>
> Aether is NOT a replacement for the Wagon, from what I can
Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
I had a look at the branch, and don't understand how the new maven-artifact-
descriptor module is used to extend Aether in Maven 3.
It enables Aether to extract dependency information out of POMs, similar
in purpose to the MavenMetadataSource in 2.x
- RepositorySystem
Le mardi 03 août 2010, Benjamin Bentmann a écrit :
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
> > At any rate we would like to merge these changes in and make plans to
> > release 3.0-beta-2.
>
> Just in case, those changes currently live at
> http://github.com/bentmann/maven-3/
I had a look at the branch, and don't
Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
java.lang.NoSuchMethodError:
org.apache.maven.plugin.MavenPluginManager.getPluginDescriptor(Lorg/apache/maven/model/Plugin;Lorg/apache/maven/artifact/repository/RepositoryRequest;)Lorg/apache/maven/plugin/descriptor/PluginDescriptor;
I adjusted the 3.x API, so just sync up
Hi,
I have fixed it locally.
You can have a look at the patch for site plugin attached here :
https://issues.sonatype.org/browse/SPICE-33.
But you must have a look too at SPICE-33 and use last SNAPSHOT of
guice/plexus stuff.
2010/8/6 Hervé BOUTEMY :
> Le vendredi 06 août 2010, Jason van Zyl a
So even though I'm on vacation this week I took the time to get the code from
git and read the wiki. Now I am even more concerned, even though I have read
everyone's responses.
Aether is NOT a replacement for the Wagon, from what I can tell it replaces all
the artifact resolution handling. Thi
Le vendredi 06 août 2010, Jason van Zyl a écrit :
> Why don't you just try the site plugin with the branch with Aether and
> Guice and make sure it works?
I built Benjamin's branch for myself and tried "mvn -Prun-its install" on
maven-site-plugin 3.0-beta-1-SNAPSHOT branch and got failure for eve
Point of vue of a Maven user :
We need to have a new beta release, ie beta-2 since the beta-1 is now
3/4 months old and Maven 2.2.1 is one year old.
This will help us show our co-workers and may be more important, our
IT managers, that Maven 3.0 progress.
They didn't follow maven-dev list and onl
I think it would be helpful if two JIRA tickets were created for the
separate integrations. This way, people can track and report back on any
issues they find -- plus know what release it planned for. I, being a
bystander who watches the development, I did not know these two things were
planned.
P
On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> On 07/08/2010, at 1:22 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
>
>> I'm not so concerned about confusing users with a beta2 and then a
>> beta3, that can be mitigated easily in the announcement. More releases
>> won't hurt anyone.
>>
>> Let those working on it
On 07/08/2010, at 1:22 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
> I'm not so concerned about confusing users with a beta2 and then a
> beta3, that can be mitigated easily in the announcement. More releases
> won't hurt anyone.
>
> Let those working on it decide what to do and when presented with a
> vote, I'll test
On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
> I'm not so concerned about confusing users with a beta2 and then a
> beta3, that can be mitigated easily in the announcement. More releases
> won't hurt anyone.
>
If we were deciding to leave Guice/Aether to Maven 3.1 then my opinion would be
let
+1
Vincent
Le 2010-08-05 à 20:04, Arnaud Héritier a
écrit :
Ok,
Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more
than I'm doing :-) )
Could we have a consensus if we :
- release now the trunk as a beta 2 without Guice and Aether. With
that we'll have a solid bas
I'm not so concerned about confusing users with a beta2 and then a
beta3, that can be mitigated easily in the announcement. More releases
won't hurt anyone.
Let those working on it decide what to do and when presented with a
vote, I'll test, verify and vote accordingly, regardless of if it's
beta
Yes but the main issue is that nobody will test aether/guice before the release
of the beta (and more before a real GA).
We can suppose we'll find some others issues like the OOEM I had and thus this
beta will be useless (for me it is in the current state => 14M/2488M &
5:23.389s vs 9M/125M &
Oops! Thanks :-)
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Benjamin Bentmann <
benjamin.bentm...@udo.edu> wrote:
> Paul Benedict wrote:
>
> Cool. Is this really in the beta-3 branch or will it be part of beta-2?
>>
>
> JIRA says fix version is alpha-3.
>
>
>
> Benjamin
>
> ---
You could also cut beta-2 today and just not release it. Move on to beta-3
immediately to merge. If the merge turns out to be a disaster, at least you
have a branch and an artifact to deploy as a backup plan. Regardless, I
don't expect anything to go tragically wrong.
>From my perspective of a Rel
Paul Benedict wrote:
Cool. Is this really in the beta-3 branch or will it be part of beta-2?
JIRA says fix version is alpha-3.
Benjamin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-m
Cool. Is this really in the beta-3 branch or will it be part of beta-2?
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
> Paul Benedict wrote:
>
> The ticket doesn't say what 3.0 will be -- a hard error or a soft warning?
>>
>
> It has to remain a warning until extension plugins can co
I think user issues can be addressed with some naming magic. Instead
of 3.0-beta2 and 3.0-beta3, go with 3.0-beta2, and 3.0-beta2a
It's still "forward", and it implies that they're similar or related
versions, and the notes/announce on it can be clear, but it won't
carry the implication th
Paul Benedict wrote:
The ticket doesn't say what 3.0 will be -- a hard error or a soft warning?
It has to remain a warning until extension plugins can contribute to the
model validation.
Benjamin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
> The advantage is to do what I did this morning in few minutes.
> I found a OOME on Aether/Guice branch (reported to benjamin but not in MNG
> because it's not yet integrated) and then I validated it wasn't here in
> current trunk.
> The pro
Benjamin,
Thanks. I see it is resolved for 3.0-beta-3, but the commit happened in 2009
and then softened to a warning. The ticket doesn't say what 3.0 will be -- a
hard error or a soft warning?
Paul
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
> Paul Benedict wrote:
>
> I accident
The advantage is to do what I did this morning in few minutes.
I found a OOME on Aether/Guice branch (reported to benjamin but not in MNG
because it's not yet integrated) and then I validated it wasn't here in current
trunk.
The problem is that I had to rebuild both of them hat users won't do.
W
I was wondering the exact same thing just yesterday, I ran into a project
using complie for several of its dependencies
--
View this message in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/Should-scope-names-be-validated-tp2266705p2266712.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at
Paul Benedict wrote:
I accidentally set a bunch of dependencies to scope "package" rather than
"runtime". A goofy error -- I admit my shame. However, I notice Maven didn't
complain one bit about this. Does anyone think this is worth a JIRA ticket
as a bug or an enhancement?
http://jira.codehau
I accidentally set a bunch of dependencies to scope "package" rather than
"runtime". A goofy error -- I admit my shame. However, I notice Maven didn't
complain one bit about this. Does anyone think this is worth a JIRA ticket
as a bug or an enhancement?
Paul
Then we wait until we fix it. What difference does a week make at this point.
Honestly?
On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> Given that Arnaud found a bad memory leak in the Aether/Guice version I
> think it would be good to get beta-2 out now without Aether/Guice
>
> Then fix
On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:14 AM, John Casey wrote:
> There is one huge advantage to two releases, however:
>
> You know that if the bug exists in both places, you don't have to dig through
> this huge pile of code that is the new container. That's a large set of
> assumptions you don't have to che
Given that Arnaud found a bad memory leak in the Aether/Guice version I
think it would be good to get beta-2 out now without Aether/Guice
Then fix the leak and roll beta-3 as soon as the leak is fixed
-Stephen
On 6 August 2010 15:10, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Brian
+1 and if you're so concerned about the official beta2/beta3 thing you can
just build an official internal release that can be provided on demand to
reproduce the problem. I don't see what the problem could be if we explain
to the community what we're trying to achieve. It is in their best interest
There is one huge advantage to two releases, however:
You know that if the bug exists in both places, you don't have to dig
through this huge pile of code that is the new container. That's a large
set of assumptions you don't have to check.
On 8/6/10 10:10 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Aug 6,
On Aug 6, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
> 2010/8/5 Arnaud Héritier :
>> Ok,
>>
>> Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more than I'm
>> doing :-) )
>>
>> Could we have a consensus if we :
>> - release now the trunk as a beta 2 without Guice and Aether. With th
+1
Emmanuel
2010/8/6 Arnaud Héritier
> Ok,
>
> Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more than
> I'm doing :-) )
>
> Could we have a consensus if we :
> - release now the trunk as a beta 2 without Guice and Aether. With that
> we'll have a solid base to compare future
2010/8/5 Arnaud Héritier :
> Ok,
>
> Thus talking is good but doing is better ( I know I'm talking more than I'm
> doing :-) )
>
> Could we have a consensus if we :
> - release now the trunk as a beta 2 without Guice and Aether. With that
> we'll have a solid base to compare future changes wit
Hi,
You can have a look how it works here :
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/branches/maven-site-plugin-3.x/
2010/8/6 Baruch Sadogursky :
> Hi, folks!
>
> I am trying to run some mojo without executing the whole build.
> In general here's what I do:
> 1. Build PluginDescriptor from
Hi, folks!
I am trying to run some mojo without executing the whole build.
In general here's what I do:
1. Build PluginDescriptor from META-INF/maven/plugin.xml
2. Build MavenSession
3. Add Mojo instance to Plexus
4. BuildPluginManager.executeMojo()
For some reason the parameters in Mojo aren't p
41 matches
Mail list logo
