+1
Regards,
Hervé
Le samedi 20 décembre 2014 15:49:17 Karl Heinz Marbaise a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> We solved 8 issues:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11125&version=180
> 43
>
> There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/issues/?jql=proj
GitHub user Tibor17 opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/76
[SUREFIRE-1128] Fix mvn 2.2.1 build process
https://builds.apache.org/view/All/job/maven-surefire-mvn-2.2.1
Fixed annoying issue related to JDK5/7
mvn verify -pl maven-failsafe-plugi
Hi,
my +1 ...
anyone else?
On 12/20/14 3:49 PM, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
Hi,
We solved 8 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11125&version=18043
There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
http://jira.codehaus.org/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20MANTRUN%20
Hi,
let me summarize things a little bit:
> Last time discussed this we established a consensus to establish 3.0.5
> (maybe 3.0.6) as a minimum baseline for the 3.x range of plugins.
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@maven.apache.org/msg102539.html
that was not three months ago...so the line to
+1 for moving to at least 1.6 or even 1.7. While 1.8 would be the release
with more interesting features, I think requiring this would be too early.
Regards
Mirko
--
Sent from my mobile
On Dec 25, 2014 1:12 PM, "Lennart Jörelid"
wrote:
> Quite true.
>
> :)
>
> But this opens another interesting
Karl, my goal is to make happy user after 2.18. As I said this release is a
legal fix for the blocker appeared in 2.18. The issue appeared 25-50% of
plugin's lifetime.
Pls see my comments SUREFIRE-1128. If you guys find more issues, feel free
to post comments in JIRA. I am going to push the first
Quite true.
:)
But this opens another interesting discussion.
Do we move the codehaus products with the slowest of the major JDK release
cycles (i.e. to match the IBM JDK release cycle in this case)?
Or with the Oracle JDK's release cycles?
There may not be much difference in the mechanics of JD
... and when I say "CodeHaus" above, I mean "Apache".
Fair?
;)
2014-12-25 13:11 GMT+01:00 Lennart Jörelid :
> Quite true.
>
> :)
>
> But this opens another interesting discussion.
> Do we move the codehaus products with the slowest of the major JDK release
> cycles (i.e. to match the IBM JDK rel
It appears that IBM JDK6 is EOL september next year. People move at
different speeds :)
Kristian
2014-12-25 6:25 GMT+01:00 Gary Gregory :
> +1
>
> Gary
>
> Original message From: Benson Margulies
> Date:12/24/2014 17:08 (GMT-05:00)
> To: Maven Developers List Cc:
> Subj
Hi,
so checked SHA1, Tested with Maven 3.0.5, 3.1.1, 3.2.1 without any issue...
Unfortunately testing with Maven 2.2.1 i got some failures:
Caused by: org.apache.maven.it.VerificationException: Exit code was
non-zero: 1; command line and log =
/usr/share/java/apache-maven-2.2.1/bin/mvn -e --ba
10 matches
Mail list logo
