w a single execution to be bound to multpile phases.
> > Then we could bind to validate,pre-site.
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Eric Redmond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 11:08 AM
> > To: Maven Developers List
> >
n to be bound to multpile phases.
> Then we could bind to validate,pre-site.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Redmond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 11:08 AM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: [discuss] add validate/initialize
tiples and allow a single execution to be bound to multpile phases.
> Then we could bind to validate,pre-site.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Redmond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 11:08 AM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: [disc
to multpile phases.
Then we could bind to validate,pre-site.
-Original Message-
From: Eric Redmond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 11:08 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [discuss] add validate/initialize to site lifecycle
How would this phase work, in a pr
e,pre-site.
-Original Message-
From: Eric Redmond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 11:08 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [discuss] add validate/initialize to site lifecycle
How would this phase work, in a practical manner? If someone runs the
phase, which life
ooking at a 2.1+ thing here. Adding them but changing
the name defeats the whole purpose. Thanks for the info.
-Original Message-
From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 10:21 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [discuss] add validate/initial
] add validate/initialize to site lifecycle
Max is right, if you add these phases to the site lifecycle (fine by me,
I suppose), they'll have to have different names. This is really
unfortunate, but that's the only way they can be incorporated into
2.0.x, or 2.1 (without some redesign).
-
Max is right, if you add these phases to the site lifecycle (fine by me, I
suppose), they'll have to have different names. This is really unfortunate,
but that's the only way they can be incorporated into 2.0.x, or 2.1 (without
some redesign).
-john
On 4/4/07, Max Bowsher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
Brian E. Fox wrote:
> As Jerome pointed out earlier today on the enforcer thread, it would be
> nice to be able to bind some plugins like the enforcer to a phase that
> affects both default and site. After all, if you don't want to support
> some Maven/Jdk/Os/other version, chances are that applies
-
From: Franz Allan Valencia See [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:41 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: [discuss] add validate/initialize to site lifecycle
I think pre-site is the site lifecycle's "initialize" phase ( as is
pre-clean for the clea
I think pre-site is the site lifecycle's "initialize" phase ( as is
pre-clean for the clean lifecycle ).
On 4/3/07, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As Jerome pointed out earlier today on the enforcer thread, it would be
nice to be able to bind some plugins like the enforcer to a phase t
As Jerome pointed out earlier today on the enforcer thread, it would be
nice to be able to bind some plugins like the enforcer to a phase that
affects both default and site. After all, if you don't want to support
some Maven/Jdk/Os/other version, chances are that applies to sites and
reports as wel
12 matches
Mail list logo
