ing perfectly fine in 2.1.x. So accommodating the any
previous plugins along with improvements that we are going to make in
2.1.x.
Jason.
--Brian
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 12:01 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject
opers List
Subject: Re: Moving toward 2.0.6
On 12 Mar 07, at 6:15 AM 12 Mar 07, Jerome Lacoste wrote:
> On 3/12/07, Kenney Westerhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I think we should require the hiding of p-u 1.4.1 in 2.0.6, or let it
>> still use 1.1. All previous releases
On 12 Mar 07, at 6:15 AM 12 Mar 07, Jerome Lacoste wrote:
On 3/12/07, Kenney Westerhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think we should require the hiding of p-u 1.4.1 in 2.0.6, or let
it still use 1.1. All previous releases (except for beta releases)
use p-u 1.1. I'm afraid exposing p-u 1.4.1 wi
On 12 Mar 07, at 2:23 AM 12 Mar 07, Kenney Westerhof wrote:
I think we should require the hiding of p-u 1.4.1 in 2.0.6, or let
it still use 1.1. All previous releases (except for beta releases)
use p-u 1.1. I'm afraid exposing p-u 1.4.1 will break more
than just surefire.
I certainly do the h
Yes, I can add the override model option in; I'm fairly busy presently, but
I can hopefully have something out in the next day or two.
Patrick
On 3/12/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11 Mar 07, at 4:02 PM 11 Mar 07, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Jason,
>
> Well, I view the behavior o
On 3/12/07, Kenney Westerhof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think we should require the hiding of p-u 1.4.1 in 2.0.6, or let
it still use 1.1. All previous releases (except for beta releases)
use p-u 1.1. I'm afraid exposing p-u 1.4.1 will break more
than just surefire.
I agree.
But even hidin
I think we should require the hiding of p-u 1.4.1 in 2.0.6, or let
it still use 1.1. All previous releases (except for beta releases)
use p-u 1.1. I'm afraid exposing p-u 1.4.1 will break more
than just surefire.
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 12 Mar 07, at 12:22 AM 12 Mar 07, Jerome Lacoste wrote:
On 12 Mar 07, at 12:22 AM 12 Mar 07, Jerome Lacoste wrote:
On 3/12/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11 Mar 07, at 9:48 PM 11 Mar 07, Jerome Lacoste wrote:
[...]
Some days ago we talked about trying to not expose the internal maven
> plexus-utils to the projects it builds.
On 3/12/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11 Mar 07, at 9:48 PM 11 Mar 07, Jerome Lacoste wrote:
[...]
Some days ago we talked about trying to not expose the internal maven
> plexus-utils to the projects it builds.
>
I have done work on trunk and am working with Torsten to f
On 11 Mar 07, at 9:48 PM 11 Mar 07, Jerome Lacoste wrote:
On 3/11/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I've got three issues left to close out for 2.0.6 and two of them I
will finish tomorrow and the snapshot weirdness I will fix wed/thurs.
But if anyone wants to try what's there
On 11 Mar 07, at 6:31 PM 11 Mar 07, Brett Porter wrote:
This was something I specifically wanted to check, so I'll look
more closely in the next couple of days, but it sounds like a deal
breaker for a .0.x release.
Not hard to put back in and we agreed that the behavior, however
defect
On 11 Mar 07, at 4:02 PM 11 Mar 07, Ralph Goers wrote:
Jason,
Well, I view the behavior of the patch as being correct, but since
the override flag has been removed from the pom it breaks backward
compatibility with previous 2.0 verisons - which is why I added the
flag in the first place.
The email from Jason below explains why it was done this way. I believe
this discussion should have happened on the dev list.
Ralph
Brett Porter wrote:
This was something I specifically wanted to check, so I'll look more
closely in the next couple of days, but it sounds like a deal breaker
f
On 3/11/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I've got three issues left to close out for 2.0.6 and two of them I
will finish tomorrow and the snapshot weirdness I will fix wed/thurs.
But if anyone wants to try what's there so far it's here:
Jason,
Some days ago we talked about
This was something I specifically wanted to check, so I'll look more
closely in the next couple of days, but it sounds like a deal breaker
for a .0.x release.
- Brett
On 11/03/2007, at 4:02 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
Jason,
Well, I view the behavior of the patch as being correct, but since
Jason,
Well, I view the behavior of the patch as being correct, but since the
override flag has been removed from the pom it breaks backward
compatibility with previous 2.0 verisons - which is why I added the flag
in the first place.
However, if anyone complains about this it should be point
Hi,
I've got three issues left to close out for 2.0.6 and two of them I
will finish tomorrow and the snapshot weirdness I will fix wed/thurs.
But if anyone wants to try what's there so far it's here:
http://idisk.maven.org/jvanzyl/Public/maven/
I imagine the MNG-1577 might spark some discu
17 matches
Mail list logo
