ok, go on with the branch but then please create CI job in
https://builds.apache.org/job/maven-surefire/.
We will nicely see how the branch is still in green.
I want to be brief. I understand that this work takes private time, I was
idle for cca 5 months in Surefire and recovered recently. Many col
Github user Tibor17 commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/118
@britter
I see the CI https://builds.apache.org/job/maven-surefire/ already has JDK8.
:+1: after adding `assumeThat(java.specification.version,
is(greaterThan(1.7)));` from https://gi
Github user Tibor17 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/120#discussion_r78302041
--- Diff:
surefire-integration-tests/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/surefire/its/fixture/HelperAssertions.java
---
@@ -159,4 +164,10 @@ public static
Github user Tibor17 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/120#discussion_r78301886
--- Diff:
surefire-integration-tests/src/test/java/org/apache/maven/surefire/its/fixture/HelperAssertions.java
---
@@ -159,4 +164,10 @@ public static
Go ahead.
Maybe I get the chance to share these thoughts with some people at JavaOne
too.
And let's make a list of third parties we want to contact, direct contact
probably works better than broadcasting.
Robert
On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 12:49:18 +0200, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
I've not see
I've not seen any major issues identified with this scheme (other than
perhaps platformId might be a better name than architectureId)
Will I take a stab at writing this up more formally then?
Should we circulate it more widely?
Did anyone involved with the NMaven effort have any thoughts?
On T
