On 3 Jul 2014, at 6:25, Robert Scholte wrote:
This is probably more than enough for tomorrow.
A discussion on a merits and flaws of (when combined with
mirrors) is also warranted after some previous discussion on the list.
Mark
-
Mark Rheinhold just posted about Phase 2 of Project Jigsaw:
http://mreinhold.org/blog/jigsaw-phase-two
and the draft doc:
http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/goals-reqs/03
Some really good ideas in here, something to think about with Maven
going forward maybe.
Mark
Sounds reasonable.
On Jul 2, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Igor Fedorenko wrote:
> SessionScope and MojoExecutionScope introduced in maven 3.2.1 require
> explicit support from maven-plugin-testing-harness. Unfortunately, there
> is no clean/straightforward way to introduce such support and still be
> able
SessionScope and MojoExecutionScope introduced in maven 3.2.1 require
explicit support from maven-plugin-testing-harness. Unfortunately, there
is no clean/straightforward way to introduce such support and still be
able to use maven-plugin-testing-harness with earlier versions of maven.
What peopl
Cool, thanks.
On Jul 2, 2014, at 3:45 PM, Michael-O <1983-01...@gmx.net> wrote:
> All updated as good as possible.
>
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 02. Juli 2014 um 16:36 Uhr
>> Von: "Paul Benedict"
>> An: "Maven Developers List"
>> Betreff: Re: Re: Issues to be reviewed for 3.x
>>
>> I noticed that
All updated as good as possible.
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 02. Juli 2014 um 16:36 Uhr
> Von: "Paul Benedict"
> An: "Maven Developers List"
> Betreff: Re: Re: Issues to be reviewed for 3.x
>
> I noticed that too. There are fixed issues hanging around in that JIRA
> version but I don't know which vers
Sure, I can fill some time with my proposal.[1]
Another thing that comes to my mind is Stephens proposal on "supplies
concept"[2]
And an interesting talk would be about the proposal "Removing ability for
plugins to dynamically inject dependencies"[3]. For most cases I can think
of a solution
Forwarding this to the team. Perhaps or perhaps not this will help the
Maven 4.0 discussion. IIRC, Jason is interested in polishing how Maven
perceives artifacts at compile time vs runtime, which Oracle seems to also
want to address through Java.
Cheers,
Paul
-- Forwarded message ---
I noticed that too. There are fixed issues hanging around in that JIRA
version but I don't know which version they were officially fixed in. It
will require an archelogical dig. I don't have the time to sort that out
but if you can figure it out and mail the list, I'll update the tickets.
Cheers,
The hangout is the same time as last week:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/c5dc2fimb4mau0anec7i1nde500
I figure we'll just always schedule it even if few or no one shows up. Just a
standing meeting to discuss anything.
Robert, maybe you would like to talk about your lifecycle proposal? We c
> Okay guys. It's done. Our issue list is much cleaner. Almost 300 issues
> were removed. This gives what is left for 3.x a much clearer perspective.
Hi Paul,
looks way better now. Some thing though, most of alread fixed issue can be
bound to a distinct Maven version. Do you want to change the
Thanks Dan.
I didn't appreciate at first the impact of setResolveTransitively(true).
NB I needed to change request.setResolveRoot(false) to exclude the provided
artifact.
William
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> On Jun 19, 2014, at 6:36 PM, William Ferguson <
> william
Okay guys. It's done. Our issue list is much cleaner. Almost 300 issues
were removed. This gives what is left for 3.x a much clearer perspective.
Cheers,
Paul
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Thanks for cleaning that up. Any help is welcomed. After the cleanup and a
> co
Thanks for cleaning that up. Any help is welcomed. After the cleanup and a
couple releases the issue count is still hovering around 200 even after closing
another 30 issues.
On Jul 2, 2014, at 2:15 AM, Michael Osipov wrote:
> Am 2014-07-01 18:21, schrieb Paul Benedict:
>> I was just about to b
On 2 Jul 2014, at 07:18, Michael Osipov wrote:
> Am 2014-07-01 12:59, schrieb Michal Srb:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I filed a bug [1] and opened pull request [2] for maven-javadoc-plugin.
>> Please see links below for context. The real problem seems to be in
>> javadoc tool, but it can be avoided by not p
15 matches
Mail list logo
