RE: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

hould be happy cause it uses the bootstrap ;-) -Original Message- From: Brett Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 10:32 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10 What was the problem? Just related to the bootstrap fixes John p

Re: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:41 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: RE: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10 The 3599 tests are failing on the grid on all the vms it seems and on my machine. 3485 is also failing on windows in the grid. -Original Message- From: Br

RE: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

Ok, it's sorted out now and I'll stage RC2 -Original Message- From: Brian E. Fox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:41 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: RE: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10 The 3599 tests are failing on the grid on all the vms it

RE: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

forward with 2.0.10 I checked these over and agree, they look good, and all the ITs pass, so I went ahead and applied them. Thanks for figuring out the 3599 inconsistency :) Cheers, Brett On 29/10/2008, at 3:42 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote: > Brian E. Fox wrote: > >> Please try it

RE: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

ITIER [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 10:15 AM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10 I agree but I find the first RC was out quickly without giving the time to review the bugs we wanted to fix in this version. It's not a big prob

Re: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

I agree but I find the first RC was out quickly without giving the time to review the bugs we wanted to fix in this version. It's not a big problem. We'll fix it in the .11. I'm preparing an IT. Arnaud On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Brian Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Arnaud, the idea is to

Re: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

Arnaud, the idea is to limit the scope to new regressions once we start an RC. Otherwise we would spin in circles forever. --Brian (mobile) On Oct 29, 2008, at 2:04 AM, "Arnaud HERITIER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ok brett, I'll try to create a testcase without seam. Even if we try to

Re: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

I checked these over and agree, they look good, and all the ITs pass, so I went ahead and applied them. Thanks for figuring out the 3599 inconsistency :) Cheers, Brett On 29/10/2008, at 3:42 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote: Brian E. Fox wrote: Please try it out and see if we have any remaini

Re: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

Yep, re-applied it on 2.0.x / 2.0.10-RC. On 29/10/2008, at 6:19 AM, John Casey wrote: I seem to remember a fix brett put in for this when we were working on [what became] 2.1.0-M1. I think it's in a console resolution listener, possibly in maven-core or maven-artifact (-manager). I'm prett

Re: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

Sure, just that the final release still needs to be rolled from one or the other, and wasn't sure which you were using. I was mostly asking in the context of MNG-3599 that Benjamin pointed out to me on IRC yesterday. Since the 2.0.x is already rolled over to 2.0.11, I created a branch 2.0

Re: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

Sure, I was just suggesting that things that used to work and now don't, like this, are more important :) On 29/10/2008, at 2:04 PM, Arnaud HERITIER wrote: ok brett, I'll try to create a testcase without seam. Even if we try to improve the quality of our releases I think we have to fix an

Re: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

ok brett, I'll try to create a testcase without seam. Even if we try to improve the quality of our releases I think we have to fix any issue that we find in 2.0.x in a bug fix and not only bugs we introduced in a bug fix release. >From the beginning we should have apply only bugs fixes on 2.0.x

Re: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

Hi Arnaud, The issue didn't make it clear that this is actually a regression from 2.0.8 -> 2.0.9. It'd be helpful to have an IT for this that doesn't rely on Seam to be able to get it fixed. I'd be a little reluctant to make a dep change this far along in 2.0.10, since it's not a regressi

Re: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

MNG-3775 is also more than annoying We added a testcase and I can try to create an IT if necessary. Arnaud On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Benjamin Bentmann < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brian E. Fox wrote: > > Please try it out and see if we have an

Re: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

I seem to remember a fix brett put in for this when we were working on [what became] 2.1.0-M1. I think it's in a console resolution listener, possibly in maven-core or maven-artifact (-manager). I'm pretty sure this is in maven, not wagon. Benjamin Bentmann wrote: Brian E. Fox wrote: Please

RE: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

In the new wagon beta-3 I imagine. -Original Message- From: Benjamin Bentmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:38 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10 Brian E. Fox wrote: > Please try it out and see if we have

Re: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

Brian E. Fox wrote: Please try it out and see if we have any remaining regressions over 2.0.9. If it looks good, then I'll recut the official build as normal. Hm, the RC prints ugly exception stack traces of org.apache.maven.wagon.ResourceDoesNotExistException, even on INFO level. Just try "

Re: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

Brian E. Fox wrote: Please try it out and see if we have any remaining regressions over 2.0.9. It's not a regression but would nicely fit our efforts to stabilize things: While investigating why 2.0.10-RC1 passed the IT MNG-3599 for Brett but not for me, I discovered MNG-3805. It's just anot

Re: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

I was hoping this would be a quick process and not require another branch, but if we need to then lets make a branch On 10/28/08 5:55 AM, "Brett Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for picking this up Brian, got sick over the weekend and didn't > have the time to poke at this further to

Re: [RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

Thanks for picking this up Brian, got sick over the weekend and didn't have the time to poke at this further to where I was. I fixed the build up after the release now, will try the binaries out over the next day or two. For the purpose of committing any fixes, will you be creating an RC

[RC] Moving forward with 2.0.10

It's been stalled for a while so it's time to JFDI. The last 2 issues are resolved for 2.0.10, which had a combined 75 votes. I bumped the extension issue to 2.0.11 since it is complicated, no patch yet and it's debatable if it's even worth fixing in 2.0.x. Here's the list of issues fixed i