I don't know what you mean by "send pull requests to Jenkins", if you're
talking about Apache's Jenkins instance or something more general from the
Jenkins project
but I'm interested by the "it would be auto-installable" objective at least on
Apache's Jenkins instance
so I'll read any pointer
Careful there Stephen, we are talking process here, not the specifics of
the git implementation.
-Chris
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 30 May 2013, Wayne Fay wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Stephen Connoll
This discussion about respins is really strange to me. I've been
cutting releases, with Maven, at Apache, for years now. And all of
them have reused version numbers for respins. And all of them have
carefully used staging technology (old: directories, new: Nexus) to
ensure that artifacts don't esca
Greetings,
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> (Aside: not sure that we'll get that much more eyes for 3.1.0-alpha-x... I
> think the eyes will only hit it when we get to 3.1.0...)
It would be nice if someone sent pull requests to Jenkins so that it
would be auto-installab
Go for it!
(Aside: not sure that we'll get that much more eyes for 3.1.0-alpha-x... I
think the eyes will only hit it when we get to 3.1.0...)
On Thursday, 30 May 2013, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> I'm going to stick to alpha-1. No one has looked at it save 10 people
> which doesn't, to me, constitute
GitHub user mfriedenhagen opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/24
Surefire 999 annotation based
Hello @krosenvold,
as suggested in [your
comment](https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SUREFIRE-999?focusedCommentId=325906&page=com.atlassian.jira.pl
I'm going to stick to alpha-1. No one has looked at it save 10 people which
doesn't, to me, constitute any reasonably sized population. I'll roll it out in
the morning.
On May 30, 2013, at 4:15 PM, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> You are the release manager. My vote on respinning specifically state
You are the release manager. My vote on respinning specifically stated that
any releases in progress, the release manager can decide.
If it were me I'd call it 3.1.0-beta-1 as we have had enough eyes by now
that its better than alpha... I'd also be happy going straight for the
3.1.0 end game... Bu
On Thursday, 30 May 2013, Wayne Fay wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Stephen Connolly <...> wrote:
> >
> > And I am considering whether I want to change my vote ;-)
Nope I'm sticking with
+1 no reusing version numbers
After Fred pointed out the immutability thing and given that eg tom
I will be counting spilt votes like this as the actual release vote... If
we want to finesse for alpha and beta after the principle for releases is
established, we can have another vote...
So to clarify: Robert's vote is currently
-1 reuse version numbers when respinning
On Thursday, 30 May 2013
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 4:55 AM, Stephen Connolly <...> wrote:
>
> And I am considering whether I want to change my vote ;-)
I am as well. Fred's comments like:
> but I'm not confused by the absence
> of 2.7.3 in any way shape or form.
and
> The concept of immutability is pretty core to
> Maven (
Let me rephrase my vote:
+1 for qualified releases
-1 for actual releases
Robert
Op Wed, 29 May 2013 19:07:59 +0200 schreef Robert Scholte
:
-1 (binding) on actual releases
Robert
Op Wed, 29 May 2013 15:20:17 +0200 schreef Daniel Kulp
:
+1 for "qualified" releases (alpha, beta, RC,
Ok, we're just waiting now for Stephen to summarize the vote and then when we
figure out what to call it I'll roll out the release.
On May 30, 2013, at 2:32 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/AetherClassNotFound
>
> page created
> improvements welcome
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/AetherClassNotFound
page created
improvements welcome
Regards,
Hervé
Le jeudi 30 mai 2013 09:10:50 Arnaud Héritier a écrit :
> Perfect. Thx
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> > MNG-5482 fixed: ok for me to go for take 4
Hi all!
The spdy protocol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPDY) is getting more and
more tracking and giving some good performance benefits virtually for
free. I was wondering if anybody knows if the http libraries used by Maven
for the various requests (wagon and others) already support spdy or if
No, I'd cut off my own hand with a blunt teaspoon before I did that.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Chris Graham wrote:
> No, not at all.
>
> We're talking about removing the latest tag whilst in the process of
> voting.
>
> My reading of what you wrote, was that you were suggesting to
> retro
No, not at all.
We're talking about removing the latest tag whilst in the process of voting.
My reading of what you wrote, was that you were suggesting to retroactively go
back and remove tags that are not the latest release.
Which I believe is against the apache rules.
-Chris
Sent from my i
Point missed. You said:
It's a huge change; as if you do not delete, you now have broken 'releases'
> in a SCM somwhere, and that is radically different to what is currently
> there.
>
And my point was, it's no change at all, there are already broken
"releases" (without the quotes) in an SCM some
Nicely pointed out.
If a release is strictly speaking, the source bundle, then I have even less
of an objection to respinning a release.
-Chris
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As far as the ASF is concerned, from a legal perspective
No, by their own rules, if the vote passed, then it's 'valid' release.
That fact that we have more than one release of anything means that we
sometimes get it wrong.
-Chris
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Fred Cooke wrote:
> Are you saying that tags for 2.1 and 2.2.0 of Maven itself should
On 30 May 2013 11:38, Fred Cooke wrote:
> When I first witnessed the deletion of tags
> and re-spinning of versions some months ago it was the most disturbing
> thing that's happened to me since I found out that Santa Claus wasn't real.
>
WHAT THE F*CK!!! Are you suggesting to me that he isn't r
As far as the ASF is concerned, from a legal perspective, the tag is not a
release.
The only release is the src.tar.gz in the dist folder or the archives.
Tags and binaries are simply a convenience for users.
Whether that is something that is important to the Maven community is a
different quest
Are you saying that tags for 2.1 and 2.2.0 of Maven itself should be
deleted because those versions are broken? A tag isn't a guarantee of
correctness/non-brokenness, it's just a *permanent* record of what a
particular version contained. The concept of immutability is pretty core to
Maven (at least
One more thing to consider:
It's a huge change; as if you do not delete, you now have broken 'releases'
in a SCM somwhere, and that is radically different to what is currently
there.
I should be able to check anything out now from a tag, build it and have it
work.
If we allow broken tags, then w
On 30 May 2013 10:30, Chris Graham wrote:
> Thank you Stephen for taking the time to explain.
>
> To me, the key critical bits are:
>
> 1. The full normal tag is created, and deleted if failed. If the release
> process fails (as in release:prepare/release:perform) we often have to
> delete the ta
Thank you Stephen for taking the time to explain.
To me, the key critical bits are:
1. The full normal tag is created, and deleted if failed. If the release
process fails (as in release:prepare/release:perform) we often have to
delete the tag and manually re-run it anyway.
2. The copying process
Perfect. Thx
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> MNG-5482 fixed: ok for me to go for take 4
>
> when a plugin cannot be loaded due to missing Sonatype Aether class, hint
> url
> will be
> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/AetherClassNotFound
>
> the Wiki articl
On Thursday, 30 May 2013, Chris Graham wrote:
> What do we currently do for plugins?
What do we currently do for core?
> Is there in difference in the approach taken?
No difference. In each case we currently respin failed votes reusing the
version number until we get an actual successful vote.
+1 for pre-releases (RC, etc)
-1 for actual releases
(non-binding)
/Anders
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> I agree with Dan and Wayne
>
> +1 for "qualified" releases (alpha, beta, RC, etc…) that are working
> toward the
> full blow release but aren't intended to be that.
29 matches
Mail list logo
