Hi Hervé,
So it sounds we need a new release of the parent pom's to get the new
information from the parent pom...
On 11/9/14 10:40 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
cause of this strange "Default target for maven-compiler-plugin version
3.1"JDK requirement found:
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MPLUG
cause of this strange "Default target for maven-compiler-plugin version
3.1"JDK requirement found:
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MPLUGIN-279
parent poms updated to avoid this problem:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MPOM-63
and before the parent poms are released, every plugin should con
Hi,
The vote has passed with the following result:
+1 (binding): Karl Heinz Marbaise, Hervé Boutemy, Robert Scholte
+1 (non binding): none
I will promote the artifacts to the central repo.
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
-
T
+1
Op Sun, 02 Nov 2014 09:50:26 +0100 schreef Karl Heinz Marbaise
:
Hi,
We solved 13 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11085&version=19853
There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
http://jira.codehaus.org/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20JXR%20AND%20stat
+1
Regards,
Hervé
Le dimanche 2 novembre 2014 09:50:26 Karl Heinz Marbaise a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> We solved 13 issues:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11085&version=198
> 53
>
> There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/issues/?jql=pr
Here my +1...
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
On 11/2/14 9:50 AM, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
Hi,
We solved 13 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11085&version=19853
There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
http://jira.codehaus.org/issues/?jql=project%2
Hi,
We solved 13 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11085&version=19853
There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
http://jira.codehaus.org/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20JXR%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Open%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC%2C%20priority%20DESC
Staging re
It has been nagging us for quite some time now, if you built with the
rat profile activated. In the latest parent release it was moved to be
a part of the normal build and to also fail the build. So the
situation is new, but you can't blame the rat for that - it was our
own decision :-)
The releas
I suppose you're right. I was sufficiently unfamiliar with rat to know that
it always fails the build, I was somehow hoping it would nag us initially
and we could make it stricter after some time. But the rat seems to be an
all or nothing kind of type
K
2. Nov. 2014 01:24 skrev "Andreas Gudian
Hmm, I would find it a bit embarrassing to release a source zip that I know
does not build without either deleting a file or skipping the rat-check,
which, as of only recently, is otherwise part of the build. That was not
the case for the previous releases... :-/
Am Sonntag, 2. November 2014 sch
Personally I think the canceling of this vote is on the boundary of
absolute silliness. We have been releasing stuff with incorrect
license headers for years, and we are working to improve it. As long
as we are showing clear progress in the proper direction, I find this
process utterly wasteful.
K
Hi Karl-Heinz,
my compliments for taking the responsibility as release manager to cancel
this vote, even when there were enough binding votes.
best,
Robert
Op Sat, 01 Nov 2014 16:41:05 +0100 schreef Karl Heinz Marbaise
:
I will cancel this vote based on the problem with DEPENDENCIES file
I will cancel this vote based on the problem with DEPENDENCIES file in
relationship with apache-rat-plugin which would result in a release
which couldn't be built without touching configuration which couldn't be
the right way...
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
On 10/26/14 11:15 PM, Karl Hei
Hi Robert,
On 11/1/14 3:58 PM, Robert Scholte wrote:
Hi Karl-Heinz,
I know it is added afterwards as part of the distribution-zip, but
that's also the official source (so it is not the tag as many would
expect). Now we have a distribution, which can't be build without
adjusting the rat plugin
+1
26. Okt. 2014 23:16 skrev "Karl Heinz Marbaise"
følgende:
> Hi,
>
> We solved 10 issues:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?
> projectId=11085&version=19853
>
> There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%
> 20JXR%20AND%
Hi Karl-Heinz,
I know it is added afterwards as part of the distribution-zip, but that's
also the official source (so it is not the tag as many would expect). Now
we have a distribution, which can't be build without adjusting the rat
plugin arguments.
So for me +0 since it is considered t
Hi Robert,
the file is added during the release process and is not in the
scmsounds like an addition to the exclude for the release...or a
change in RAT...
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
On 11/1/14 2:39 PM, Robert Scholte wrote:
Hi,
I get a rat failure when trying to build the projec
Hi,
I get a rat failure when trying to build the project based on
jxr-2.5-source-release.zip:
Apache Licensed: 8
Generated Documents: 0
JavaDocs are generated and so license header is optional
Generated files do not required license headers
1 Unknown Licenses
**
Hi,
anyone giving me a binding vote cause i miss only one...
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Hi Hervé,
On 10/29/14 3:31 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
+1
same strange "Default target for maven-compiler-plugin version 3.1"JDK
requirement [1] as Maven Clean Plugin
we'll probably have something to do to improve this, because it seems updated
parent pom puts this for every plugin...
wasn't awar
+1
same strange "Default target for maven-compiler-plugin version 3.1"JDK
requirement [1] as Maven Clean Plugin
we'll probably have something to do to improve this, because it seems updated
parent pom puts this for every plugin...
Regards,
Hervé
[1]
http://maven.apache.org/jxr-archives/jxr-L
Le lundi 27 octobre 2014 09:13:47 Karl Heinz Marbaise a écrit :
> Hi Michael,
>
> On 10/27/14 7:23 AM, Michael Osipov wrote:
> > Am 2014-10-26 um 23:15 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> We solved 10 issues:
> >> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11085&versio
> On 10/27/14 11:02 AM, Michael Osipov wrote:
> >> Hi Michael,
> >>
> >> On 10/27/14 7:23 AM, Michael Osipov wrote:
> >>> Am 2014-10-26 um 23:15 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise:
> Hi,
>
> We solved 10 issues:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11085&version
On 10/27/14 11:02 AM, Michael Osipov wrote:
Hi Michael,
On 10/27/14 7:23 AM, Michael Osipov wrote:
Am 2014-10-26 um 23:15 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise:
Hi,
We solved 10 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11085&version=19853
JXR-116: Doxia is already at 1.6. S
> Hi Michael,
>
> On 10/27/14 7:23 AM, Michael Osipov wrote:
> > Am 2014-10-26 um 23:15 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> We solved 10 issues:
> >> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11085&version=19853
> >>
> >
> > JXR-116: Doxia is already at 1.6. Shouldn't
Hi Michael,
On 10/27/14 7:23 AM, Michael Osipov wrote:
Am 2014-10-26 um 23:15 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise:
Hi,
We solved 10 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11085&version=19853
JXR-116: Doxia is already at 1.6. Shouldn't we upgrade first?
Yes this is true
Am 2014-10-26 um 23:15 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise:
Hi,
We solved 10 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11085&version=19853
JXR-116: Doxia is already at 1.6. Shouldn't we upgrade first?
Michael
-
Hi,
We solved 10 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11085&version=19853
There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
http://jira.codehaus.org/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20JXR%20AND%20status%20%3D%20Open%20ORDER%20BY%20key%20DESC%2C%20priority%20DESC
Staging re
28 matches
Mail list logo
