Hi,
Take 2, I added MENFORCER-109.
Changelog:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11530&version=13616
Staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/groups/maven_promotion-013/
( i promoted it along with the parent to a single repo)
Staging site:
http://people.apach
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
So I checked out the 2.2.x branch tried to build it prior to maing any
changes, by running:
mvn install -Prun-its
...
Tests run: 663, Failures: 6, Errors: 370, Skipped: 0
The last CI build on Hudson for the 2.2.x branch yielded only 1 failure,
hard to tell what's going
So I have a desire to have maven check prior versions of an artifact
and determine if the apache version standard is being followed.
I had implemented a patch against the clirr plugin in the mojo project
to do this.
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MCLIRR-33
It's been several months and this doesn'
Le Tue, 2 Nov 2010 16:42:35 -0400,
Brian Fox a écrit :
> It's staged in the maven-008 repo.
Works better :)
Ok then +1 for me : works fine on our projects.
Thanks Brian for this release.
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:25 PM, chemit wrote:
> > Le Tue, 2 Nov 2010 13:47:17 -0400,
> > Brian Fox
Thanks, sorry for the inconvenience...
Rex
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
> Ok i'll respin the release with this patch. I don't think we need
> formal adoption rules for this stuff, it's part of a plugin and can be
> treated as any other commit.
>
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:53
Ok i'll respin the release with this patch. I don't think we need
formal adoption rules for this stuff, it's part of a plugin and can be
treated as any other commit.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Rex Hoffman wrote:
> I just created a JIRA issue against a standard rule, with a patch:
>
> http://
It's staged in the maven-008 repo.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:25 PM, chemit wrote:
> Le Tue, 2 Nov 2010 13:47:17 -0400,
> Brian Fox a écrit :
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> I can't test the plugin, it seems that the maven-parent-17 can't be
> found ? I saw a vote about it but don't know if it has been yet
> re
I just created a JIRA issue against a standard rule, with a patch:
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MENFORCER-109
Obviously I am not an apache member, but I contributed
dependency-convergence enforcer rule (probably with this bug in place)
and I'd like to cleanup my mess before it gets released.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> At Apache? There is no IP review process. What are you talking about?
Contributor License Agreements are available from Apache -- I think
used mostly when a committer joins and external projects migrate in
the incubator.
Quote from the lic
On Nov 2, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
> I don't see why it would be any different than if you took that same
> code from an svn patch in Jira.
Have you actually used Git with someone else, or processed a pull request?
> The point is that there's a threshold
> to a code contribution that
Le Tue, 2 Nov 2010 13:47:17 -0400,
Brian Fox a écrit :
Hi Brian,
I can't test the plugin, it seems that the maven-parent-17 can't be
found ? I saw a vote about it but don't know if it has been yet
released ?
I have just check and it is not on central, so release can not be test
at the moment (a
+1
--jason
On Nov 2, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Changelog:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11530&version=13616
>
> Staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-009/
>
> Staging site:
> http://people.apache.org/~brian
Hi,
Changelog:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11530&version=13616
Staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-009/
Staging site:
http://people.apache.org/~brianf/enforcer-stage/plugins/maven-enforcer-plugin/
Guide to testing staged releases
I don't see why it would be any different than if you took that same
code from an svn patch in Jira. The point is that there's a threshold
to a code contribution that requires an ip review process. The
mechanism if it's a patch file or a pull request shouldn't matter if
we trust the committers to d
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> Is there a way we can utilise pull requests from github.org/apache and still
>> get them back to the svn repository so we can try this in a meaningful way?
I thought any code stored in SVN but developed outside of Apache
requires going t
On Nov 2, 2010, at 5:00 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> On 02/11/2010, at 6:06 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> Those parts are about 10% at the start and end. The rest is in the middle,
>>> and perhaps the pressure to fix more things while you are there.
>>>
>>
>> No, I think it's mostly
On 02/11/2010, at 6:06 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>
>> Those parts are about 10% at the start and end. The rest is in the middle,
>> and perhaps the pressure to fix more things while you are there.
>>
>
> No, I think it's mostly not seeing the patches and no one actively
> cultivating the p
On 2 November 2010 13:03, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:33 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
> Nothing does ever happen. That's empirically evident at least here.
>
> But I'm fine having a vote, we certainly can't do less so there's no harm.
>
I await the [VOTE] thread with excitement
On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:33 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> On 2 November 2010 12:08, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2010, at 12:20 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>
>>> I think we should have a separate discussion on what our SLA with the
>>> Maven users should be / can be.
>>>
>>
>> I think f
On 2 November 2010 12:08, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 12:20 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
>> I think we should have a separate discussion on what our SLA with the
>> Maven users should be / can be.
>>
>
> I think following the Eclipse process is wise. We're not going to come up
>
On Nov 2, 2010, at 12:20 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> On 2 November 2010 10:50, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:38 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>>
On 2 November 2010 10:10, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>
On 2 November 2010 10:50, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:38 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>
>>> On 2 November 2010 10:10, Jason van Zyl wrote:
That's perfectly reasonable, people who object commit to signing u
On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:38 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
>> On 2 November 2010 10:10, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> That's perfectly reasonable, people who object commit to signing up to
>>> maintain the plugin. I think it's also fair t
On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:38 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> On 2 November 2010 10:10, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>
>> That's perfectly reasonable, people who object commit to signing up to
>> maintain the plugin. I think it's also fair to say if someone does this and
>> then doesn't follow through
On 2 November 2010 10:10, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>
> That's perfectly reasonable, people who object commit to signing up to
> maintain the plugin. I think it's also fair to say if someone does this and
> then doesn't follow through loses the right to vote again to save a plugin a
> plugin from
On Nov 2, 2010, at 8:17 AM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> On 2010-11-02 00:10, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 1, 2010, at 10:35 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Given the discussions about retiring plugin I feel strongly that we need
>>> to have a plan for doing so. There are bound t
On Nov 2, 2010, at 9:23 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> On 01/11/2010, at 10:26 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
>
>>> The barrier to collaboration is high here.
>>
>> That's all I'm saying. The tools make that partially true but it's not
>> stopping other projects so it's clearly not the only issue. Maybe no
On Nov 2, 2010, at 8:25 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
> On 01/11/2010, at 6:37 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> At any rate if anyone has ideas or documents I'll integrate it into the
>> proposal I'm writing. I'm moving pretty fast and I plan to release a version
>> of the Maven Shell next week, and th
On 2 November 2010 08:23, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> On 01/11/2010, at 10:26 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
>
>>> The barrier to collaboration is high here.
>>
>> That's all I'm saying. The tools make that partially true but it's not
>> stopping other projects so it's clearly not the only issue. Maybe no
>> on
On Nov 2, 2010, at 4:12 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 7:36 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2010, at 3:29 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not sure I understand. Is the proposal here to deploy non-XML project
>>> descriptors to the repository in addition to the sta
On 2 November 2010 08:26, Brett Porter wrote:
>
> On 01/11/2010, at 6:42 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
>> On 1 November 2010 21:37, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>>> On 2010-11-01 22:10, Stephen Connolly wrote:
Then -1 the commits.
We have a commit first, ask forgiveness second policy in
It's really a matter of who is going to support. Saying it's important and then
not doing much with it I don't believe is acceptable. At least if we put it
somewhere else, more people can work on it.
On Nov 2, 2010, at 9:37 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> Go
Hi Jason,
Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Go for it. I'm going to help retire them, after that it's fair game. So if
> you, and the folks who might want to work on it, are cool with that then
> take it over there.
I consider the eclipse plugin still one of the more essential ones. As long
there is a def
+1
Kristian
Den 02.11.2010 09:20, skrev Dennis Lundberg:
+1
On 2010-10-30 23:34, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Hi,
We solved 3 issues:
(Sorry JIRA is currently unavailable, so I'm listing the individual
issue links instead of the release notes)
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MWAR-193
http://jira.
On 01/11/2010, at 6:42 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> On 1 November 2010 21:37, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>> On 2010-11-01 22:10, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>>> Then -1 the commits.
>>>
>>> We have a commit first, ask forgiveness second policy in maven last time I
>>> checked
>>
>> So do you think th
On 01/11/2010, at 10:26 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
>> The barrier to collaboration is high here.
>
> That's all I'm saying. The tools make that partially true but it's not
> stopping other projects so it's clearly not the only issue. Maybe no
> one really cares about these plugins, and for the ones ra
+1
On 2010-10-30 23:34, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We solved 3 issues:
> (Sorry JIRA is currently unavailable, so I'm listing the individual
> issue links instead of the release notes)
>
> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MWAR-193
> http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MWAR-235
> http://jira.cod
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Barrie Treloar wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Paul Benedict
> wrote:
> > +1 on keeping the eclipse plugin. I like m2Eclipse but at times is
> > buggy so I fall back to using this often.
>
> As someone who irregularly maintains m-e-p I have the same issue
On 01/11/2010, at 6:37 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> At any rate if anyone has ideas or documents I'll integrate it into the
> proposal I'm writing. I'm moving pretty fast and I plan to release a version
> of the Maven Shell next week, and then a couple weeks later a version with
> Polyglot capabi
On 2010-11-02 00:46, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Do you want a different process and proposal process for restructuring? Like
> I've proposed for the site plugin?
Such a process isn't easy to put down in words, as one proposal might
look very different from another.
However the propose, discuss, vote
On 2010-11-02 00:10, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Nov 1, 2010, at 10:35 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Given the discussions about retiring plugin I feel strongly that we need
>> to have a plan for doing so. There are bound to be differing opinions
>> about this, so see this as a startin
On 2010-11-02 04:00, Dan Tran wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:40 AM, Dan Tran wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Nov 1, 2010, at 11:24 PM, Dan Tran wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 2:15 P
42 matches
Mail list logo
