I can just checkin the markdown source into svn. Others are using the site
plugin from trunk so someone can publish it.
On Nov 12, 2012, at 10:05 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> Le samedi 10 novembre 2012 14:52:38 Jason van Zyl a écrit :
>> Ok, I'll just keep using my Github pages for now until it's
On Nov 12, 2012, at 10:01 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> Le dimanche 11 novembre 2012 18:18:58 Jason van Zyl a écrit :
>> On Nov 11, 2012, at 5:49 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
>>> Le samedi 10 novembre 2012 18:08:02 Jason van Zyl a écrit :
> 2. plugins or components: using Aether API would mean tha
Le samedi 10 novembre 2012 14:52:38 Jason van Zyl a écrit :
> Ok, I'll just keep using my Github pages for now until it's supported.
> Thanks.
where do you want it, so we can work together on slf4j docs?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Le dimanche 11 novembre 2012 18:18:58 Jason van Zyl a écrit :
> On Nov 11, 2012, at 5:49 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> > Le samedi 10 novembre 2012 18:08:02 Jason van Zyl a écrit :
> >>> 2. plugins or components: using Aether API would mean that it won't work
> >>> with Maven 2 or 3.0. With maven-dep
Not sure how that's related to the compiler plugin release?
/Anders
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Hi folks!
>
> I would like to also make the resource plugin incremental aware. That
> would already help alot.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
Release early, release often ;)
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> I think most agree that's a reasonable plan.
>
> On Nov 12, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>
> > I agree with Anders' proposal. Let us ship 3.1 of Maven using
> > slf4j-simple to get the change of
Thanks for looking. I am Windows impaired :-)
On Nov 12, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> On 2012-11-11 05:58, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> I have more cycles now, so I'd like to propose a tentative release schedule
>> for the core and get some changes pushed out.
>>
>> 3.1.0 Release
>>
I think most agree that's a reasonable plan.
On Nov 12, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> I agree with Anders' proposal. Let us ship 3.1 of Maven using
> slf4j-simple to get the change of logging api properly tried in the field.
>
> After that, maybe targeting 3.2, we can discuss *if*
On 2012-11-11 05:58, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> I have more cycles now, so I'd like to propose a tentative release schedule
> for the core and get some changes pushed out.
>
> 3.1.0 Release
>
> I'd like to finish the following and then do a 3.1.0 release. I don't think
> these changes should be con
I agree with Anders' proposal. Let us ship 3.1 of Maven using
slf4j-simple to get the change of logging api properly tried in the field.
After that, maybe targeting 3.2, we can discuss *if* we need a complex
logging framework or not, and if so *which* framework would best suit
the needs that Maven
Kristian Rosenvold :
> Andreas;
>
> We have somewhat of a tradition for staying backward compatible om plugin
> options. So normally we would add any alternate parameters in addition to
> the existing (causing more code and duplication).
>
> I know I am probably massively disqualified because tot
Hi folks!
I would like to also make the resource plugin incremental aware. That would
already help alot.
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message -
> From: Anders Hammar
> To: Maven Developers List
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 8:22 AM
> Subject: Re: Maven Compiler 3.0 plugin r
Anyone mind if I create a 3.1.0, 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 version in JIRA?
I'm going to try and sort out what the next few releases might look like and to
help people see what the roadmap looks like so issues can be contributed (Jörg
and Anders for example).
On Nov 12, 2012, at 7:57 AM, Jason van Zyl w
Greg,
After all these years I don't spend much time thinking about logging anymore. I
use SLF4J, Logback and contribute back to those projects if I need anything.
I see that 8-9 projects at Apache are already using Logback which I think is a
pretty good indicator.
At any rate, I think that we
Hi guys,
Hope ill not be too off topic but why not using slf4j-jdk? It is pretty
light since it relies on the jvm impl and it is already an interesting real
logging framework (with handler/appender, filter, level...)
Le 12 nov. 2012 16:20, "Jason van Zyl" a écrit :
> I responded in your dogfood
Jason,
That's all fine. I am looking for specifics to make Log4J 2 better.
Gary
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Gary,
>
> If by that you mean that it's an Apache project, I don't consider that to
> be a significant criterion. For me to incorporate something it matters
I responded in your dogfood email.
On Nov 12, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 11, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>>
>>> 2012/11/11 Jason van Zyl :
On Nov 11, 2012, at 2:49 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Gary,
If by that you mean that it's an Apache project, I don't consider that to be a
significant criterion. For me to incorporate something it matters that it's
technically good and has been vetted, is mature, is well supported and has a
community of users as that's how something gets vetted ov
On 12-11-11 6:52 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
If the discussion is now transitioning to users want flexible
logging and the choice of a logging framework that's fine. But I
still maintain the CLI use of logging can be limited and
constrained while allowing integrators to make the small changes
neces
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
> > 2012/11/11 Jason van Zyl :
> >>
> >> On Nov 11, 2012, at 2:49 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Perso I propose a change by pointing you (you means other maven dev
> >>> folks
On Nov 11, 2012, at 6:52 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> 2012/11/11 Jason van Zyl :
>>
>> On Nov 11, 2012, at 2:49 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Perso I propose a change by pointing you (you means other maven dev
>>> folks too) to a branch I made somewhere but you commit code without
>>> list
If Kristian is going to take a look that's great. If I remember correctly when
I thought the EJB plugin might have been the source of problem.
On Nov 12, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Jörg Schaible wrote:
> Hi,
>
> personally I'd like to see at least one 3.x release that is again able to
> calculate a pr
I'm done. Please go ahead and release it!
/Anders
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Anders Hammar wrote:
> Give me some hours, I think there's at least one JIRA ticket that I want
> to close as fixed.
>
> /Anders
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> Some imp
GitHub user agudian opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/8
forkMode onceperthread (SUREFIRE-751)
In relation to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SUREFIRE-751
- Adds a new forkMode option "onceperthread", that creates one reusable
forked process for
I'll try to take a look at this one.
Kristian
2012/11/12 Jörg Schaible :
> Hi,
>
> personally I'd like to see at least one 3.x release that is again able to
> calculate a proper build sequence. M3 is broken in this regard and you
> cannot even rely on its results, because it uses and packs stale
25 matches
Mail list logo
