Afaik the ci is up to date so must pass so likely needs a fix.
Le sam. 13 janv. 2024 à 14:43, Martin Desruisseaux <
martin.desruisse...@geomatys.com> a écrit :
> Just saw that the CI build has been successful on Java 17 and 21, but
> failed on Java 11 because of the use of the |{@return ...}| jav
Just saw that the CI build has been successful on Java 17 and 21, but
failed on Java 11 because of the use of the |{@return ...}| javadoc tag.
This is a trivial Javadoc issue only. Its resolution depends on Maven
PMC decision about which Java version to require.
Martin
Le 2024-01-10 à 15 h 01, Tamás Cservenák a écrit :
IMO, add all. I think is fine, but PR discussion will decide anyway...
Created a JIRA task [1] and a pull request [2] after rebasing behind
latest Maven commit.
Note 1: the guideline shown when creating the pull request suggested to
put the
IMO, add all. I think is fine, but PR discussion will decide anyway...
T
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 2:56 PM Martin Desruisseaux <
martin.desruisse...@geomatys.com> wrote:
> Le 2024-01-10 à 14 h 45, Tamás Cservenák a écrit :
> >
> > I really like what I see here. Can you make a PR out of it?
> >
>
Le 2024-01-10 à 14 h 45, Tamás Cservenák a écrit :
I really like what I see here. Can you make a PR out of it?
Sure, I can create the PR and the JIRA tasks in the next few days. Do we
exclude (for now) the last commit, if the type names need discussion?
I will also need to add test cases bef
I see https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-7855 but it is a bug.
I'd rather create one "improvement" or "new feat" even, and work under that
one, and later we can collect all related bugs under this one...
T
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 2:45 PM Tamás Cservenák wrote:
> Martin,
>
> I really lik
Martin,
I really like what I see here. Can you make a PR out of it?
Do you have a JIRA to assign PR to or should I create one? (or you can
register for a JIRA account if you want...).
Thanks
T
On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 6:16 PM Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> Design looks better for me
Hi Martin,
Design looks better for me now (at this "type" thing but guess the
dependency set idea is not liked too so let's keep it), thanks a lot, very
impatient plugins start to embrace this new model (in particular on
configuration side)!
Side note: we can need to review the new type names bef
Le 2024-01-09 à 16 h 57, Tamás Cservenák a écrit :
Thanks for your effort, I will take a peek at this soon.
Thanks. Note that commit 1 can be ignored (it is only cleanup), and
commit 2 (refactoring of DependencyProperties) could be omitted as well
if PathTypes were provided directly as a Depe
Martin,
Thanks for your effort, I will take a peek at this soon.
Just FTR, this is GH link:
https://github.com/apache/maven/compare/master...Geomatys:maven:explicit-module-path
Thanks
T
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 4:10 AM Martin Desruisseaux <
martin.desruisse...@geomatys.com> wrote:
> Hello all
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
