I fixed distribution name in the branch to avoid the problem
and I iproved the version detection regex in MSHARED-308 to permit the
distribution name that caused the issue
Regards,
Hervé
Le dimanche 24 novembre 2013 19:21:40 Hervé BOUTEMY a écrit :
> I think I fixed it, just by avoiding confus
Yes indeed, I have GitTortoise installed.
You may call it good news, but I've also started the Process Explorer (to
keep track of the problematic process) and now I've been able to run the
project three times in a row without failures.
So it's a bit frustrating that the result is inconsistent
I sometimes have the problem that the explorer extension tgitcache from
Tortoise keeps handles open in git directories. Maybe your test machine has
that installed?
> Am 25.11.2013 um 19:46 schrieb "Robert Scholte" :
>
> I have an appointment tonight, will try it afterwards or tomorrow with a
>
I have an appointment tonight, will try it afterwards or tomorrow with a
clean checkout.
Robert
Op Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:43:58 +0100 schreef Dominik Bartholdi
:
Thats really disappointing, specially as I have finally managed to get
hold on a windows PC and I just run everything 10times in
Thats really disappointing, specially as I have finally managed to get hold on
a windows PC and I just run everything 10times in row without any issues… :(
I’m pretty much out of ideas :(
If anyone has any hand he can share, that would be great!
I tried with: Windows 7, Java 1.6.0_17-b04, maven 3.
In addition to the modelVersion evolution problem, there are some other
issues that I think we need to address for Maven 4.0+
* Platform specific builds
* Architecture specific builds
* Native build flavours (e.g. debug vs non-debug)
You could see this as the "side-artifact" dilemma.
Here are
Hello,
I have a couple of m2e extensions that I use to work on maven and maven
plugins. In short, they allow running/debugging maven core and maven
plugin directly from m2e workspace, without the need to install anything
to the local repo after each code change.
There is slightly more detailed d
On Monday, 25 November 2013, Barrie Treloar wrote:
> On 25 November 2013 20:32, Stephen Connolly
> > wrote:
> > be able to generate a pom for 4.0.0 clients that contains some of the
> > bug/features that some people seem to rely on, e.g. ${} expansion in
> > ... but we don't need to maintain such
On 25 November 2013 20:32, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> be able to generate a pom for 4.0.0 clients that contains some of the
> bug/features that some people seem to rely on, e.g. ${} expansion in
> ... but we don't need to maintain such guarantees when we
> have a new schema.
If there is a better w
Check #1 - Not getting worse on RAT checks
Rat check of 2.1:
Unapproved: 72 unknown: 72 generated: 0 approved: 193 licence.
Rat check of proposed 2.2:
Unapproved: 72 unknown: 72 generated: 0 approved: 193 licence.
Pass
Check #2 - source dist builds and passes ITs
[IN
First off, and this is addressed at drive-by readers, most everyone else
knows me well enough to know this anyway. I may be the PMC chair, but
99.99% of the things I say are not said as the PMC chair, instead they are
said as a committer to the project who is interested in the current and
future he
11 matches
Mail list logo
