@Kristian
I am working on it but I cannot debug the plugin. It's not a problem of
tests. I guess surefire is not running tests in-plugin process. It looks to
me that TEST_SET_FINISHED is not received or sent but that's only
hypothesis.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Kristian Rosenvold <
kristian.
+1
On 8 October 2015 at 09:10, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We solved 5 issues:
>
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12331490&styleName=Text&projectId=12317922&Create=Create&atl_token=A5KQ-2QAV-T4JA-FDED%7C8959a4aa0ef1e581a93c2903df89c21523603417%7Clin
>
> Th
Hi,
ModelMerger is the parent class of every model mergers: AFAIK, it does not
merge configuration of plugins
if you want to test plugins configuration merge, you'll have to test either
DefaultInheritanceAssembler.InheritanceModelMerger if you want to test
inheritance merge or DefaultPluginMan
I identified the commit that caused the breakage,
cb97ba70cb9ebe685f8f2a06e87b538795b5dd9b.
I dont have further time to find the bug right now, but I suspect this
should be enough to find the problem.
Kristian
2015-10-08 19:09 GMT+02:00 Kristian Rosenvold :
> I created https://issues.apache.or
I created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SUREFIRE-1182 to track
this issue.
I analyzed the two thread dumps, and it would appear that the
interesting bits are in the main process; the forked process appears
to be completely idle. But why are there two streampumper threads in
the main proces
2015-10-08 16:55 GMT+02:00 Tibor Digana :
> @Kristian
> Can we switch to other mail thread "surefire 2.19 hangs".
I dont necessarily think this is a good idea. We are discussing a
candidate for a release, and I believe this is the appropriate place
to discuss these matters, since it's really a go/
yes if nothing is specified in pluginManagement, maven will look into apache
groupId firstly and in mojo groupId in a second time
That’s why releasing a latest dummy version on apache side announcing the move
may be a good idea for all people using it to invite us to specify the required
entry i
This was on linux. I'll try to diagnose later tonight
K
8. okt. 2015 5.32 p.m. skrev "Arnaud Héritier" :
> When I was using windows I remember that unlocked was my friend :
> http://www.emptyloop.com/unlocker/
> Maybe there are others tools nowadays …
> The most important is to see which proc
When I was using windows I remember that unlocked was my friend :
http://www.emptyloop.com/unlocker/
Maybe there are others tools nowadays …
The most important is to see which process is locking the files you are trying
to delete to understand why it didn’t unlock them
> On 08 Oct 2015, at 16:5
@Kristian
Can we switch to other mail thread "surefire 2.19 hangs".
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Tibor Digana-2 [via Maven] <
ml-node+s40175n584795...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:
> @Stian Soiland-Reyes
> I dont understand what you are testing GPG or the build?
> Why don't you use gpg in settings.xml
Yes, I used Windows.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
> Isn’t it a process which didn’t stopped correctly on windows and it avoids
> to delete the surefirebooter jar ?
> Love windows …..
>
>
> > On 08 Oct 2015, at 15:00, Tibor Digana wrote:
> >
> > after mvn clean:
> >
> >
@Stian Soiland-Reyes
I dont understand what you are testing GPG or the build?
Why don't you use gpg in settings.xml?
The test
JUnit47ParallelIT is performance test which means overloading CPU with
other staff is not allowed.
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
wrote:
> On 6 Octob
Hi,
checked shasum Ok..
Checked via mvn -Prun-its clean verify
No issue found.
On 10/6/15 3:41 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Hi,
We solved 1 issues:
** New Feature
* [MASSEMBLY-780] - Snappy supported
There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/brow
No one is going out of their way to break anything.
No one is willing to maintain it. So, consistent with Apache policy,
it should be 'attic-ed'. If then, some people want to take advantage
of the Apache license and fork it into mojohaus, that's their
privilege under the license. There's no such t
Because it is impossible to maintain it nowadays. Too much features (support
for many eclipse distress with many extensions like WTP…), not enough tests and
the impossibility to validate anything at the end because configuration files
used by eclipse are evolving, not documented and there is no
On 6 October 2015 at 15:40, Benson Margulies wrote:
> +1 binding.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
-1 non-binding
Tested with a naive
Isn’t it a process which didn’t stopped correctly on windows and it avoids to
delete the surefirebooter jar ?
Love windows …..
> On 08 Oct 2015, at 15:00, Tibor Digana wrote:
>
> after mvn clean:
>
> [ERROR] Failed to execute goal
> org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-clean-plugin:2.5:clean (defau
Sorry for the top post, phone.
So are you saying that the way forward is to have junk in POM files for the way
each kind of IDE does its business? Tall about mixing model and view! There is
nothing wrong with eclipse:eclipse IMO but I have no spare cycles to maintain
it. I'm not sure why Maven w
+1
2015-10-06 15:41 GMT+02:00 Benson Margulies :
> Hi,
>
> We solved 1 issues:
>
> ** New Feature
> * [MASSEMBLY-780] - Snappy supported
>
> There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MASSEMBLY-782?jql=project%20%3D%20MASSEMBLY%20AND%20status%20%
after mvn clean:
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal
org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-clean-plugin:2.5:clean (default-clean) on
project maven-core: Failed to clean project: Failed to delete
D:\vcs\maven-master\maven-core\target\surefire\surefirebooter8559182412130340457.jar
-> [Help 1]
It looks like the
ArtifactHandlerTest passed.
This is my outcome.
Which test hangs then, how can I find it in the order?
---
T E S T S
---
Running org.apache.maven.artifact.handler.ArtifactHandlerTest
Tests run
+1
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Note: This is a Maven 3.0 / JDK 6 release
>
> We solved 4 issues:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12317922&version=12333677
>
> There are several issue open:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira
cd maven-core
This does not hang
mvn test -nsu --Dtest=org/apache/maven/toolchain/**/*Test.java
mvn test -nsu
-Dtest=**/RequirementMatcherFactoryTest.java,**/ArtifactHandlerTest.java
This hangs
mvn test -nsu -Dtest=org/apache/maven/**/*Test.java
Are the tests dependent on each other, especially
Hi,
can you please ask on the user list...this is the developers list of
Maven...
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
On 10/8/15 12:41 PM, suchitra mp wrote:
Hi dev,
I am really stuck in creating creating maven project in JDBS.Need guidence.
thanks
Suchitra
---
Hi dev,
I am really stuck in creating creating maven project in JDBS.Need guidence.
thanks
Suchitra
Upgrading maven core to 2.19 (
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/maven.git) consistently
hangs on org.apache.maven.artifact.handler.ArtifactHandlerTest, this
works on 2.18.
So I'm -1 until we can find out what's happening...
Kristian
2015-10-08 10:47 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise :
>
>
Hi,
Note: This is a Maven 3.0 / JDK 6 release
We solved 4 issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12317922&version=12333677
There are several issue open:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20MSHARED%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Open%20ORDER%20BY%
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 08. Oktober 2015 um 06:36 Uhr
> Von: "Igor Fedorenko"
> An: dev@maven.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Dependencies in Dep Mngt without version
>
> I believe MNG-5727 is a different issue. Here you have unused invalid
> element. I don't have strong opinion if such
> elements sh
Hi,
checksum checked Ok.
Checked via: mvn clean verify with the following Maven versions:
Maven 3.0.5 (JDK 6, JDK 7, JDK 8),
Maven 3.1.1 (JDK 6, JDK 7, JDK 8),
Maven 3.2.5 (JDK 6, JDK 7, JDK 8),
Maven 3.3.3 (JDK 7, JDK 8) without any issue.
So +1 from me
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
On
Based on the session Tibor and I had yesterday this issue is only
related to a specific environment setup which has not been covered by
the IT's..
So here is my +1
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
On 10/8/15 7:23 AM, Tibor Digana wrote:
I keep it open, because the CI pass.
We next time shou
... understand. I will take care..
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Anders Hammar [via Maven] <
ml-node+s40175n5847858...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:
> Not sure I follow, but I'm just saying that don't up the 'prerequisites'
> element unless there is a real reason. That element also controls which
> Mav
Not sure I follow, but I'm just saying that don't up the 'prerequisites'
element unless there is a real reason. That element also controls which
Maven versions that can USE the plugin. If you want to ensure/force a
specific minimum for building just use the enforce-plugin.
/Anders
On Thu, Oct 8,
Hi Anders,
Sorry for that, you wasn't in our internal discussion in December 2014 or
November where we agreed to release experimental API in 2.x, and 3.0.
I think I can release the new API in last 2.20 this year and I will listen
to impression from our Maven Users.
We already have the API in a bra
Just for building
2015-10-08 9:24 GMT+02:00 Anders Hammar :
> Ok, just to build or to use as well?
>
> 'prerequisites' is for usage. maven-enforcer-plugin with
> requireMavenVersion=[3.0.5,) is for building.
>
> /Anders
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <
> kristian.rosenv...@
Ok, just to build or to use as well?
'prerequisites' is for usage. maven-enforcer-plugin with
requireMavenVersion=[3.0.5,) is for building.
/Anders
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Kristian Rosenvold <
kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Surefire requires 3.0.5 to build, due to bugs in earlie
Surefire requires 3.0.5 to build, due to bugs in earlier versions.
Kristian
2015-10-08 9:04 GMT+02:00 Anders Hammar :
> Why 3.0.5?
>
> We've had this discussion (in general for plugins) before and IIRC we
> decided on 3.0.
>
> /Anders
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Tibor Digana wrote:
>
Why 3.0.5?
We've had this discussion (in general for plugins) before and IIRC we
decided on 3.0.
/Anders
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Tibor Digana wrote:
> Do you agree to specify these build requirements in surefire POM?
>
>
> 3.0.5
>
>
> Updating README.txt in GitHub.
>
37 matches
Mail list logo
