Salut Olivier!
> Note project.description is the default value :-)
>
yes that is why I got crazy :P
> Is-it an open source with this issue ?
Yes I just included it in the Onami parent on /trunk. If I launch
`mvn install site`
I got the following error
[INFO] --- maven-doap-plugin:1.1:generat
[-announce]
There are known issues between the 2.4 plugin and the SCM integration for git.
See
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/maven-users/201301.mbox/%3CA94BB529DDA042A281B039C400250037%40turn.com%3E
and following messages for open bugs tracking at least one issue which appears
diffe
I don't think MRELEASE-818 is related to SCM-709.
I'm not familiar with the codebase at all, but taking a quick look it
seems PerformReleaseMojo needs to extend AbstractScmReleaseMojo instead
of AbstractReleaseMojo. At least that fixes it for me locally.
-Tim
Am 07.01.2013 20:02, schrieb Rob
Github user agudian closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/maven-shared/pull/1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
GitHub user agudian opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven-shared/pull/1
Make ShutdownHookUtils public
It can be re-used in surefire to remove some code-duplication
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/a
Hi Simo,
I just changed an it with that and cannot reproduce.
Note project.description is the default value :-)
Is-it an open source with this issue ?
2013/1/7 Simone Tripodi :
> Hi mates,
>
> forwarding to dev@ - is that a bug?
>
> TIA!
> -Simo
>
> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> http
Hi mates,
forwarding to dev@ - is that a bug?
TIA!
-Simo
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/
-- Forwarded message --
From: Simone Tripodi
Date: Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 8:41 PM
Subje
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> That's all reasonable. I will take silence from the rest as tacit
> agreement.
>
+1 to spoil the tacit silence.
>
> On Jan 7, 2013, at 1:33 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>
> > Hi Jason
> >
> > From what I have gathered from these discussions
That's all reasonable. I will take silence from the rest as tacit agreement.
On Jan 7, 2013, at 1:33 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
> Hi Jason
>
> From what I have gathered from these discussions, we have a majority of
> people that want to stick with SLF4J Simple for the 3.1.0 release, if
> all th
Could this be https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-709 ?
I'd love to see the actual output of GIT, because it looks like the
parsing is invalid.
Up until now I don't have a testcase to reproduce this issue.
Robert
Op Sun, 06 Jan 2013 23:39:34 +0100 schreef Mark Derricutt
:
Looks like th
Hi Jason
>From what I have gathered from these discussions, we have a majority of
people that want to stick with SLF4J Simple for the 3.1.0 release, if
all the quirks are ironed out. Judging by Hervé's recent commits this is
almost done, except for the class loading isolation in MNG-5406.
I think
For Maven, wé nées it since java packages are shared between modules
For scm, where java packages are dedicated to modules, tes aggregated doc is
sufficient
Envoyé depuis mon mobile
- Reply message -
De : "Olivier Lamy"
Pour : "Maven Developers List"
Objet : svn commit: r843406 - in
12 matches
Mail list logo
