WIll do, ta.
-Chris
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Stuart McCulloch wrote:
> On 7 May 2013, at 09:00, Chris Graham wrote:
>
> > I agree, the way that I have to enter the pom under 2.0.9 is now
> correctly
> > reflected by 3.x.
> >
> > However, the second part of the issue that I found is tha
Ha, found it. The site plugin is working correctly, but I happened to have
some zero-byte *site.xml files in my local repo. No idea how it got there,
but after cleaning up, the correct ones were fetched from central and
everything was fine again.
2013/5/6 Hervé BOUTEMY
> If you can create a si
The vote for 3.1.0-alpha-1 is cancelled. There is a snapshot repository in the
parent POM and the vote has gone on for far longer than acceptable.
Hervé go ahead and update any versions of the POMs you like, I have some small
changes I'm going to make and when you're happy with the updated plugi
On 7 May 2013, at 09:00, Chris Graham wrote:
> I agree, the way that I have to enter the pom under 2.0.9 is now correctly
> reflected by 3.x.
>
> However, the second part of the issue that I found is that the @required is
> beting totally ignored! 2.x enforces it, 3.x does not, it should.
>
> Th
I agree, the way that I have to enter the pom under 2.0.9 is now correctly
reflected by 3.x.
However, the second part of the issue that I found is that the @required is
beting totally ignored! 2.x enforces it, 3.x does not, it should.
That I believe does need to be fixed, and that should be the s
On 6 May 2013, at 23:49, Chris Graham wrote:
> Looking at that issue, if the issue was meant to deal with the example
> given, ie, and array of strings, then the issue is most certainly not
> fixed, as it is my exact case.
The issue addressed making the behaviour more consistent, which it does -
