Le mardi 27 novembre 2012 21:45:16 Benson Margulies a écrit :
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY
wrote:
> > I had a second thought about aggregate reporting plugins (or more
> > precisely
> > goal).
> >
> > Since some time, we're applying a new pattern where there is a separate
> >
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> I had a second thought about aggregate reporting plugins (or more precisely
> goal).
>
> Since some time, we're applying a new pattern where there is a separate
> reporting goal for aggregate (previously, aggregate was a parameter).
> In the
I had a second thought about aggregate reporting plugins (or more precisely
goal).
Since some time, we're applying a new pattern where there is a separate
reporting goal for aggregate (previously, aggregate was a parameter).
In the maven parent pom, we're explicitely setting a reportSet configur
Please remove it.
I've seen it slipping into way too many poms of corporate projects, just to
add more noise to the poms and give maven a bad name for "being so hard to
understand".
So it as soon as possible.
TIA + BR
Ansgar
Am 27.11.2012 21:46 schrieb "Olivier Lamy" :
> 2012/11/27 Robert Scho
Archetype is good enough for this release, but we need to some cleanup for
the next one.
+1
Robert
Op Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:11:29 +0100 schreef Arnaud Héritier
:
+1 for this release
+2 to remove it in a future release (release early, ...)
Arnaud
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Manfred
+1 for this release
+2 to remove it in a future release (release early, ...)
Arnaud
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Manfred Moser wrote:
> Great to see it is not only me that finds that weird and gets annoyed by
> it.
>
> Getting rid of it sound like a great idea.
>
> manfred
>
> On Tue, Nove
Great to see it is not only me that finds that weird and gets annoyed by it.
Getting rid of it sound like a great idea.
manfred
On Tue, November 27, 2012 12:50 pm, Anders Hammar wrote:
> +1 for removing it! Or at least change it to something that strongly
> suggest updating it.
>
> /Anders
>
>
>
Is there any rush to change that just now after so many years ?
Or that can wait next release ?
2012/11/27 Anders Hammar :
> +1 for removing it! Or at least change it to something that strongly
> suggest updating it.
>
> /Anders
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
>> 2012
+1 for removing it! Or at least change it to something that strongly
suggest updating it.
/Anders
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> 2012/11/27 Robert Scholte :
> > Hi Olivier,
> >
> > looks like a very nice and useful archetype.
> > the configuration of the m-invoker-p cou
2012/11/27 Robert Scholte :
> Hi Olivier,
>
> looks like a very nice and useful archetype.
> the configuration of the m-invoker-p could be smaller, since it includes
> some defaults.
>
> There's only one thing which always surprises me: why is the url filled with
> our site?
marketing ? :-)
more se
2012/11/27 Kristian Rosenvold :
> Olivier!
>
> I see you changed the p-archiver to use useJvmChmod=true by default,
> which was about time ;) But archiver has multiple mojos that
> du)plicate this setting, which means there are now inconsistent
> defaults (AbstractUnarchiver line 58 being at least
Hi Olivier,
looks like a very nice and useful archetype.
the configuration of the m-invoker-p could be smaller, since it includes
some defaults.
There's only one thing which always surprises me: why is the url filled
with our site?
I've seen a lot of projects started with archetypes and the
Olivier!
I see you changed the p-archiver to use useJvmChmod=true by default,
which was about time ;) But archiver has multiple mojos that
du)plicate this setting, which means there are now inconsistent
defaults (AbstractUnarchiver line 58 being at least one) inside the
archiver. Was this just an
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-5390 has been updated to
keep a separate it repo.
The issue should be handled by infra "real soon now".
Kristian
2012/11/27 Jason van Zyl :
> Yes, but Kristian suggested merging core and its ITs and we all agreed
> initially but now I think it's mor
Yes, but Kristian suggested merging core and its ITs and we all agreed
initially but now I think it's more trouble than its worth. At least to start.
On Nov 27, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
> Didn't it used to be that way? (separate)
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Stephen Conno
Didn't it used to be that way? (separate)
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 November 2012 08:41, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
> > 2012/11/27 Brett Porter :
> > >
> > > On 27/11/2012, at 10:34 AM, Arnaud Héritier
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> O
The Apache Maven team is pleased to announce the release of the Maven
Invoker Plugin, version 1.8
The Invoker Plugin is used to run a set of Maven projects. The plugin can
determine whether each project execution is successful, and optionally can
verify the output generated from a given project e
Depends on the JVM.
In general the JVM only looks for more memory (up to -Xmx) when it needs
it, so consider that to be the peak requirement (not peak usage as the JVM
will always ask for more than usage on the basis that it needs room to
allocate objects)
If you run Maven with -Xmx2048m you will
On 27 November 2012 08:41, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> 2012/11/27 Brett Porter :
> >
> > On 27/11/2012, at 10:34 AM, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm going to be working on the core for a few weeks. I am not convinced
> >>> putting
So the second figure isn't affected by Maven?
/Anders
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> 2012/11/27 Anders Hammar :
> > How do I interpret the "Final Memory" reported by Maven? "66M/188M" for
> > example, what does each of the figures mean?
>
> Runtime r = Runtime.getRuntim
2012/11/27 Anders Hammar :
> How do I interpret the "Final Memory" reported by Maven? "66M/188M" for
> example, what does each of the figures mean?
Runtime r = Runtime.getRuntime();
long MB = 1024 * 1024;
"Final Memory: " + ( r.totalMemory() - r.freeMemory() ) / MB + "M/" +
r.totalMemory() / MB +
2012/11/27 Brett Porter :
>
> On 27/11/2012, at 10:34 AM, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>> I'm going to be working on the core for a few weeks. I am not convinced
>>> putting the ITs with the core is workable. I've tried it with a few
>>> s
How do I interpret the "Final Memory" reported by Maven? "66M/188M" for
example, what does each of the figures mean?
/Anders
23 matches
Mail list logo
