Yup. I'll do this today.
On 7/18/06, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The list looks good. I agree with Jason - can we blend that into the
wiki page and perhaps reorganise so that it is the canonical reference
of what is planned, and what is underway?
- Brett
On 13/07/2006 5:39 PM, Jas
The list looks good. I agree with Jason - can we blend that into the
wiki page and perhaps reorganise so that it is the canonical reference
of what is planned, and what is underway?
- Brett
On 13/07/2006 5:39 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 12 Jul 06, at 10:40 PM 12 Jul 06, John Casey wrote:
H
On 7/14/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 13 Jul 06, at 3:49 PM 13 Jul 06, Jesse McConnell wrote:
> and as rahul reminded me on the continuum dev list..
>
> http://www.nabble.com/2.1-Design-and-Process-tf1617559.html#a4383722
>
> might be time to resurrect that idea with this jaso
On 13 Jul 06, at 3:49 PM 13 Jul 06, Jesse McConnell wrote:
and as rahul reminded me on the continuum dev list..
http://www.nabble.com/2.1-Design-and-Process-tf1617559.html#a4383722
might be time to resurrect that idea with this jason :)
Absolutely, I think a common structure for this with
and as rahul reminded me on the continuum dev list..
http://www.nabble.com/2.1-Design-and-Process-tf1617559.html#a4383722
might be time to resurrect that idea with this jason :)
jesse
On 7/13/06, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12 Jul 06, at 10:40 PM 12 Jul 06, John Casey wrote:
On 12 Jul 06, at 10:40 PM 12 Jul 06, John Casey wrote:
Hi everyone,
I guess it's fairly obvious from some of the advanced discussions
going on
in this list that we're starting to think a little more seriously
about
writing Maven 2.1. I think it's a bad idea for us to attempt
another mass
John Casey wrote on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 10:41 PM:
[snip]
> ** POM Loading / Building
>
> - Running Away from XPP3
[snip]
What's wrong with XPP3?
- Jörg
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional command
On 7/13/06, Wendell Beckwith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alternative component support would be a big win for maven 2.1 on the
OSGi/Eclipse bundle front. I look forward to hopefully contributing in this
area.
+1 here.
There have been more than one email chain on the user lists with
people buil
Alternative component support would be a big win for maven 2.1 on the
OSGi/Eclipse bundle front. I look forward to hopefully contributing in this
area.
Wb
On 7/12/06, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi everyone,
...
* Alternative Component Support
In order to flex to meet the n
Hi everyone,
I guess it's fairly obvious from some of the advanced discussions going on
in this list that we're starting to think a little more seriously about
writing Maven 2.1. I think it's a bad idea for us to attempt another massive
release (akin to 2.0) that attempts to fix everything that's
10 matches
Mail list logo
