some more personal thoughts and questions to make myself an opinion
- about determining whether Aether API is biased or not: there was an argument
for not developing Aether in Maven that was "Aether API will be more generic
to cover other dependency resolution mecanisms and repository formats, l
+1 (not binding)
-Lukas
Benson Margulies wrote:
Based on the sentiment on the discussion thread, I call a formal vote
to end support for Maven 1.x. This is a vote to:
1: Remove maven 1 release materials from the primary distribution
area, leaving them only on the archive.
2: Make appropriat
Same here.
On Sunday, March 3, 2013, Benson Margulies wrote:
> As I see it, you are using the version number to communicate with the
> tiny number of people who have made plugins that depend on Aether.
>
> I would rather see us use the version number to communicate with the
> vast number of peopl
To me I would like to roll in all of it, I think the bump in major version is
appropriate but if we call that 3.1.0 that's fine. It really does work almost
the same, there are some plugins that will get need some rework but that's not
the end of the world. To me a plugin that works in 3.0.x but
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Mar 3, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> As I see it, you are using the version number to communicate with the
>> tiny number of people who have made plugins that depend on Aether.
>>
>
> Any JSR330 discrepancies, SLF4J bein
On Mar 3, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> As I see it, you are using the version number to communicate with the
> tiny number of people who have made plugins that depend on Aether.
>
Any JSR330 discrepancies, SLF4J being used for logging and the Aether changes.
4.0.0 says "we did
Stephen,
It doesn't matter where the code is. It's complicated, takes a lot of effort to
understand and I don't really care, or see it as a problem that Benjamin is the
one who works on it most. No one else worked on here, no one else is working on
it there. It's not where it is, it's that it's
> Well I agree with Semantic Versioning, so the question here that dictates
> 3.2 vs 4.0 is whether we see Sonatype Aether as part of the exposed
> supported API of Maven. IIRC the stated position is that plugin authors are
> not supposed to rely on the Sonatype Aether API. If plugin authors have
>
On 3 March 2013 22:41, Benson Margulies wrote:
> As I see it, you are using the version number to communicate with the
> tiny number of people who have made plugins that depend on Aether.
>
> I would rather see us use the version number to communicate with the
> vast number of people who use Mave
On 3 March 2013 14:16, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> No one seems to object to doing a release with the SLF4J support without
> the isolation so I wanted to discuss what happens when we integrate Eclipse
> Aether and suggest an alternate release path.
>
> SLF4J may cause some issues, but the int
As I see it, you are using the version number to communicate with the
tiny number of people who have made plugins that depend on Aether.
I would rather see us use the version number to communicate with the
vast number of people who use Maven.
So, I'd switch to Eclipse Aether, including the need t
+1
On 03/03/2013, at 2:18 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Based on the sentiment on the discussion thread, I call a formal vote
> to end support for Maven 1.x. This is a vote to:
>
> 1: Remove maven 1 release materials from the primary distribution
> area, leaving them only on the archive.
>
> 2
On Mar 3, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote:
> A quick answer whilst I let my thoughts dwell on the full long post..
>
> If we're jumping to a major release here, is this a viable time to also
> update the schema and address of the things we've long been wanting there? (
> mixins of some
On Mar 3, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
> On 3 Mar 2013, at 14:16, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> No one seems to object to doing a release with the SLF4J support without the
>> isolation so I wanted to discuss what happens when we integrate Eclipse
>> Aether and suggest an alt
On 3 Mar 2013, at 14:16, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> No one seems to object to doing a release with the SLF4J support without the
> isolation so I wanted to discuss what happens when we integrate Eclipse
> Aether and suggest an alternate release path.
>
> SLF4J may cause some issues, but the
+0.5 (non-binding) the documentation at
http://maven.apache.org/plugins-archives/maven-changes-plugin-2.9/announcement-generate-mojo.html#issueManagementSystems
does not list GitHub (or Trac) as valid system. So I had to configure
the changes-plugin to explicitly use GitHub although this is the onl
A quick answer whilst I let my thoughts dwell on the full long post..
If we're jumping to a major release here, is this a viable time to also
update the schema and address of the things we've long been wanting
there? ( mixins of some form ) - or is this out of scope ( of this
discussion at lea
+1 (non binding).
Kind regards
Karl-Heinz Marbaise
--
SoftwareEntwicklung Beratung SchulungTel.: +49 (0) 2405 / 415 893
Dipl.Ing.(FH) Karl-Heinz MarbaiseICQ#: 135949029
Hauptstrasse 177 USt.IdNr: DE191347579
52146 Würselen http://www.s
+1
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> +1
>
> Regards,
>
> Hervé
>
> Le samedi 2 mars 2013 07:18:51 Benson Margulies a écrit :
> > Based on the sentiment on the discussion thread, I call a formal vote
> > to end support for Maven 1.x. This is a vote to:
> >
> > 1: Remove mave
Hi,
No one seems to object to doing a release with the SLF4J support without the
isolation so I wanted to discuss what happens when we integrate Eclipse Aether
and suggest an alternate release path.
SLF4J may cause some issues, but the introduction of Eclipse Aether is almost
certainly going t
+1
Regards,
Hervé
Le samedi 2 mars 2013 07:18:51 Benson Margulies a écrit :
> Based on the sentiment on the discussion thread, I call a formal vote
> to end support for Maven 1.x. This is a vote to:
>
> 1: Remove maven 1 release materials from the primary distribution
> area, leaving them only
21 matches
Mail list logo