Please write proper JIRA-descriptions

Hey all, when I started to read through the Maven JIRA issues I noticed that there are many without a description that people, who were not involved in discussions / coding in where an issues raised from, can hardly understand the issue and therefore also can't get their hands on or contribute (o

Re: please do a release of maven-archetypes so wider audience can benefit from minimal jdk of 1.8

Is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARCHETYPES-78 done? That is, are all the archetypes now updated, or are there still some left? On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 8:54 AM Jiri Vanek wrote: > > Hello! > > There was couple of PRs which made maven-archetypes jdk21 friendly. Can you > consider a reelas

please do a release of maven-archetypes so wider audience can benefit from minimal jdk of 1.8

Hello! There was couple of PRs which made maven-archetypes jdk21 friendly. Can you consider a reelase so more people can benefit from those changes? TYVM! -- Jiri Vanek Mgr. Principal QA Software Engineer Red Hat Inc. +420 775 39 01 09 -

Please show support / vote for toolchain support in java action

Github Actions become very popular to build maven projects, but currently misses a convenience way to setup the java versions. There is currently on-going work to better support this: https://github.com/actions/setup-java/issues/276 it would be great if you could leave a comment (or even revie

Re: [MCHECKSTYLE] Request for merging PRs #17 and #28 please

working on them now sorry for so late reply Enrico Il giorno lun 17 ago 2020 alle ore 14:20 Benjamin Marwell < bmarw...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > Hi, > > PRs #17 and #28 seem to be ready to be merged. They are also approved > by reviewers. > If they still look good, could they be merged? They ar

Re: maven-script-interpreter next version - please help

Hi, I would kindly remind There are anybody who can and want help me in release maven-script-interpreter sob., 25 lip 2020 o 10:35 Slawomir Jaranowski napisał(a): > Hi, > > I made changes to maven-script-interpreter which will resolve some issues > in invoker plugin. > > Last my changes brake co

[MCHECKSTYLE] Request for merging PRs #17 and #28 please

Hi, PRs #17 and #28 seem to be ready to be merged. They are also approved by reviewers. If they still look good, could they be merged? They are open for a while now. * https://github.com/apache/maven-checkstyle-plugin/pull/17 * https://github.com/apache/maven-checkstyle-plugin/pull/28 Thanks! Be

maven-script-interpreter next version - please help

Hi, I made changes to maven-script-interpreter which will resolve some issues in invoker plugin. Last my changes brake compatibility, so next version should be: *2.0* according to semVer Here is a list of change: https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MSHARED/versions/12341132 And the last PR

Re: Release maven-jxr-plugin please?

Hi Andreas, I'll do the release: please check that everything is as expected. Regards, Hervé Le jeudi 21 mai 2020, 20:01:37 CEST Andreas Sewe a écrit : > Hi, > > > would it be possible to release the maven-jxr-plugin? The last release > > is from September 2018 and si

Re: Release maven-jxr-plugin please?

Hi, > would it be possible to release the maven-jxr-plugin? The last release > is from September 2018 and since then (15 months ago, in fact) it > finally got "jxr-no-fork" goals, bringing it on par with > maven-javadoc-plugin and maven-source-plugin. just an addendum: Is there anything I can do

Release maven-jxr-plugin please?

Hi, would it be possible to release the maven-jxr-plugin? The last release is from September 2018 and since then (15 months ago, in fact) it finally got "jxr-no-fork" goals, bringing it on par with maven-javadoc-plugin and maven-source-plugin. Best wishes, Andreas --

Re: Please check master branch build before merging

I'll take a look at the doxia-site-tools issues. I think the maven-shared-utils issues have something to do with Windows. I filed 862 for this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MSHARED-862 Perhaps someone who works on Windows can investigate. It would be helpful if we could hook Jenkins di

Please check master branch build before merging

To ensure that our projects are stable, we're testing all our projects with a matrix of OSes and JDKs (and in case of plugin Maven versions) The master status can be found at (this static page is updated once per day!): https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/dist-tool-plugin/site/dist-

Please Release Maven Dependency Plugin 3.1.2

I desperately wait for publication of Maven Dependency Plugin v3.1.2. v3.1.1 was release in 2018 already, which is more than one year ago. There are several features I desperately need to use in production, so I kindly like to ask what the plan for releasing 3.1.2 is. Thanks. -Markus

Re: Please close MCHECKSTYLE-378

send my ICLA. If there's anything else I should know, please let me know. Best regards, Ben Am Sa., 14. Dez. 2019 um 12:33 Uhr schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise : > > Hi Benjamin, > > thanks helping to clean up the issue base. > > I've done so. > > Kind regards &g

Re: Please close MCHECKSTYLE-378

Hi Benjamin, thanks helping to clean up the issue base. I've done so. Kind regards Karl Heinz Marbaise On 14.12.19 12:29, Benjamin Marwell wrote: Dear devs, I am positive that https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MCHECKSTYLE-378 can be closed. The user tried to use a configuration for the wr

Please close MCHECKSTYLE-378

Dear devs, I am positive that https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MCHECKSTYLE-378 can be closed. The user tried to use a configuration for the wrong goal, see comment. Proposed resolution: Not a bug. Thanks, Ben - To unsubscr

Re: Please close MCHECKSTYLE-138

> > -- > Also, I have three open pull requests at the moment (for the > checkstyle plugin). If you'd like me to create a PR for another issue, > feel free to assign me one. > > Please note that I'd like to change my JIRA user name, but had not > luck contacting an

Please close MCHECKSTYLE-138

me to create a PR for another issue, feel free to assign me one. Please note that I'd like to change my JIRA user name, but had not luck contacting anyone about this so far. Any help would be appreciated. After this is done, I'd like to sign the CL

Please close MCHECKSTYLE-383

Hello, the issue https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MCHECKSTYLE-383 can be closed if I read it correctly. I think the issue reporter meant to report this issue over at https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/issues. Ben - To

please care and vote for Chinese people under cruel autocracy of CCP, great thanks!

ganization. PLEASE SIGNUP and VOTE for us： https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/call-official-recognition-chinese-communist-party-terrorist-organization Thanks again for all! nameless, an ant fighter 2019.8.29

Re: Please take a look at my PR for MCHECKSTYLE-357

Great :) Thank you. Am Mo., 10. Dez. 2018 um 10:04 Uhr schrieb Enrico Olivelli < eolive...@gmail.com>: > Thank you for your contribution. > I will take a look > > Cheers > Enrico > > Il lun 10 dic 2018, 09:41 Peter Lamby > ha scritto: > > > Hello everyone, > > > > im trying to get a little bit

Re: Please take a look at my PR for MCHECKSTYLE-357

Thank you for your contribution. I will take a look Cheers Enrico Il lun 10 dic 2018, 09:41 Peter Lamby ha scritto: > Hello everyone, > > im trying to get a little bit more into Open Source. A 6 months ago I > opened MCHECKSTYLE-357 with no response so far. So I tried to implement a > fix by my

Please take a look at my PR for MCHECKSTYLE-357

Hello everyone, im trying to get a little bit more into Open Source. A 6 months ago I opened MCHECKSTYLE-357 with no response so far. So I tried to implement a fix by myself. I opened a PR on github which is linked in the JIRA issue. I am a little bit discouraged that nobody replied to either. Es

Re: MNG-6530 - Please fix or revert important regression from MNG-6311

Hi guys, Another kind of projects (after IDEs) that may be affected by this issue and receiving out of date MavenProject from Project.build(...) can be for example CI systems ( https://github.com/jenkinsci/maven-dependency-update-trigger-plugin/blob/53ba25f12ee37ef221a9cfe81f9841a0270961b9/src/mai

Re: MNG-6530 - Please fix or revert important regression from MNG-6311

Hi guys, Thanks for your answer. I like the proposal of the system property to disable this bug. Let's continue discussion on the Jira ticket. Cheers,

Re: MNG-6530 - Please fix or revert important regression from MNG-6311

Hi, On 28/11/18 21:21, Robert Scholte wrote: On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 17:13:32 +0100, Mickael Istria wrote: Hi, I'm writing that in the context of some maintenance work in Eclipse m2e. Eclipse m2e likes to use the latest Maven release, but we identified (and shared it publicly on the bugtracker

Re: MNG-6530 - Please fix or revert important regression from MNG-6311

On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 17:13:32 +0100, Mickael Istria wrote: Hi, I'm writing that in the context of some maintenance work in Eclipse m2e. Eclipse m2e likes to use the latest Maven release, but we identified (and shared it publicly on the bugtracker before the 3.6.0 release) that MNG-6311 was a

MNG-6530 - Please fix or revert important regression from MNG-6311

Hi, I'm writing that in the context of some maintenance work in Eclipse m2e. Eclipse m2e likes to use the latest Maven release, but we identified (and shared it publicly on the bugtracker before the 3.6.0 release) that MNG-6311 was a risky change. We unfortunately didn't have the opportunity to pr

Re: [MJAR] please add MJAR-238 to jigsaw status as an open bug

Done On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 04:38:33 +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: Hello, On the Jigsaw-status page, it would be good to Add the Status of the m-jar-p, especially https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MJAR-238 which blocks it to be used for Setting the main Class of a modular JAR. https

[MJAR] please add MJAR-238 to jigsaw status as an open bug

Hello, On the Jigsaw-status page, it would be good to Add the Status of the m-jar-p, especially https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MJAR-238 which blocks it to be used for Setting the main Class of a modular JAR. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Java+9+-+Jigsaw The Thing has

Re: [RESULT] Re: Please retweet and vote

Hello, Only lurking those days, but chiming in quickly here :-). 2017-09-10 20:54 GMT+02:00 Robert Scholte : > On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 20:21:11 +0200, Stephen Connolly < > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun 10 Sep 2017 at 19:04, Tibor Digana wrote: >> >> Hi All, >>> >>> Are we facin

Re: [RESULT] Re: Please retweet and vote

Robert, >>And if we're focusing on the latter, shouldn't the twitter question be Good remark! I am not against such question on Twitter but I would be interested in one more in comparison to Gradle. *What the Maven should improve to make Maven more attractive against Gradle?* Because I don't th

Re: [RESULT] Re: Please retweet and vote

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 20:21:11 +0200, Stephen Connolly wrote: On Sun 10 Sep 2017 at 19:04, Tibor Digana wrote: Hi All, Are we facing new API regarding networking and security useful in Java 8? When I first saw these options I asked myself what benefit would have the User and Jenkins

Re: [RESULT] Re: Please retweet and vote

Stephen, I was pragmatic and did not want to push users to use Maven&Java8 only because JDK 7 is weak. First the interest should go from inside, this means API and then users. I agree with Michael whether we should better focus on Maven 4 and POM structure. For instance today everybody could no

Re: [RESULT] Re: Please retweet and vote

Am 2017-09-10 um 19:07 schrieb Stephen Connolly: Hervé and I discussed on irc earlier today. My suggestion - I was going to write up tomorrow - is that we drop 7 for 3.6.x We should focus 3.6.x on making the codebase Java 8 (lambdas, replace FileStream with the non-file handle leak version,

Re: [RESULT] Re: Please retweet and vote

On Sun 10 Sep 2017 at 19:04, Tibor Digana wrote: > Hi All, > > Are we facing new API regarding networking and security useful in Java 8? > > When I first saw these options I asked myself what benefit would have the > User and Jenkins from Java 8. > And second question was whether we would be so f

Re: [RESULT] Re: Please retweet and vote

Hi All, Are we facing new API regarding networking and security useful in Java 8? When I first saw these options I asked myself what benefit would have the User and Jenkins from Java 8. And second question was whether we would be so flexible to rewrite the code and use Lambda fully anywhere in th

Re: [RESULT] Re: Please retweet and vote

Hervé and I discussed on irc earlier today. My suggestion - I was going to write up tomorrow - is that we drop 7 for 3.6.x We should focus 3.6.x on making the codebase Java 8 (lambdas, replace FileStream with the non-file handle leak version, adopt Path, etc) with a view to encourage contribu

Re: [RESULT] Re: Please retweet and vote

But on twitter thus probably far from being a good representation of our users ... Le dim. 10 sept. 2017 à 18:45, Gary Gregory a écrit : > On Sep 10, 2017 10:33, "Robert Scholte" wrote: > > So what would be the conclusion? > > 35% want to keep Java7 as JRE for Maven for a shorter or longer peri

Re: [RESULT] Re: Please retweet and vote

On Sep 10, 2017 10:33, "Robert Scholte" wrote: So what would be the conclusion? 35% want to keep Java7 as JRE for Maven for a shorter or longer period? IMHO that's a lot but less than the 65% who do not, an overwhelming majority. Gary Robert On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 11:55:20 +0200, Stephen Co

Re: [RESULT] Re: Please retweet and vote

So what would be the conclusion? 35% want to keep Java7 as JRE for Maven for a shorter or longer period? IMHO that's a lot Robert On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 11:55:20 +0200, Stephen Connolly wrote: So poll results: 493 votes cast 25% want Java 7,8&9 for Maven 3.6.x 65% want Java 8&9 for Maven

[RESULT] Re: Please retweet and vote

So poll results: 493 votes cast 25% want Java 7,8&9 for Maven 3.6.x 65% want Java 8&9 for Maven 3.6.x 10% want Java 8&9 for Maven 3.6.x and 6 months of backporting to 3.5.x On Sat 9 Sep 2017 at 11:50, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > https://twitter.com/asfmavenproje

Please retweet and vote

https://twitter.com/asfmavenproject/status/906451059966693376 -- Sent from my phone

Re: Code review. Please approve new branches.

clear to understand, we can have a look deeper. Please add this profound description to the ticket itself. It will help to understand the motivation. On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Tibor Digana wrote: The changes in SUREFIRE-1376 are done. On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Michael Osipov

Re: Code review. Please approve new branches.

an be lost. Therefore flushing if stream has been closed in the intermediate time between these two threads. Maybe not clear to understand, we can have a look deeper. Please add this profound description to the ticket itself. It will help to understand the motivation. On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 12:

Re: Code review. Please approve new branches.

lear to understand, we can have a >> look deeper. >> > > Please add this profound description to the ticket itself. It will help to > understand the motivation. > > > On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Tibor Digana > > >> wrote: >> >> The changes in

Re: Code review. Please approve new branches.

closed asynchronously, then the bytes can be lost. Therefore flushing if stream has been closed in the intermediate time between these two threads. Maybe not clear to understand, we can have a look deeper. Please add this profound description to the ticket itself. It will help to understand the

Re: Code review. Please approve new branches.

Looks good now. Am 2017-06-03 um 12:31 schrieb Tibor Digana: The changes in SUREFIRE-1376 are done. On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Michael Osipov wrote: Am 2017-06-03 um 10:56 schrieb Tibor Digana: I have added a new branch with small change only, SUREFIRE-1380. https://git-wip-us.apache

Re: Code review. Please approve new branches.

Michael, I will split SUREFIRE-1380 in two tickets on tomorrow evening. Another flush is necessary because the method InputStream.read() is called in a loop and the flush should be called after last byte. If another thread marks the stream to be closed asynchronously, then the bytes can be lost. Th

Re: Code review. Please approve new branches.

The changes in SUREFIRE-1376 are done. On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Michael Osipov wrote: > Am 2017-06-03 um 10:56 schrieb Tibor Digana: > >> I have added a new branch with small change only, SUREFIRE-1380. >> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven-surefire.git >> ;a=shortlog;h=refs

Re: Code review. Please approve new branches.

Am 2017-06-03 um 10:56 schrieb Tibor Digana: I have added a new branch with small change only, SUREFIRE-1380. https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven-surefire.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/SUREFIRE-1380 I am not happy with this: you mix two different taks in one issue, refactoring and fl

Re: Code review. Please approve new branches.

Am 2017-06-03 um 09:03 schrieb Tibor Digana: Hi all, We have a patch received from users group. I have improved it a bit, added Javadoc and pushed the code to branch [1]. Jira issue related [2]. [1]: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven-surefire.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/SUREFIRE-

Re: Code review. Please approve new branches.

I have added a new branch with small change only, SUREFIRE-1380. https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven-surefire.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/SUREFIRE-1380 On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Tibor Digana wrote: > Hi all, > > We have a patch received from users group. I have improved it a b

Code review. Please approve new branches.

Hi all, We have a patch received from users group. I have improved it a bit, added Javadoc and pushed the code to branch [1]. Jira issue related [2]. [1]: https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven-surefire.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/SUREFIRE-1376 [2]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/brows

Re: Please approve branch to support JDK 9 in Surefire

Hi Robert, The IT is in the branch. I am going to push the branch to master if we have no objections. Thx T On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Robert Scholte wrote: > Hi Tibor, > > I'd suggest to use Jira's attached testcase as part of the commit. > The testcase is very small and reflects to pro

Re: Please approve branch to support JDK 9 in Surefire

Hi Tibor, I'd suggest to use Jira's attached testcase as part of the commit. The testcase is very small and reflects to problem very well. Making it part of the commit ensures you're fixing the right issue. Robert On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 21:23:32 +0200, Tibor Digana wrote: Hello, I committed

Please approve branch to support JDK 9 in Surefire

Hello, I committed branch [1] SUREFIRE-1265 with JDK 9 fix. The user's test attached in Jira passed. Can we proceed pushing it to master? [1] https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven-surefire.git;a=commit;h=c31dc99b78771db0cff085c4567d4a957397f39f Cheers Tibor

Re: [IT MNG-5958 - Take 2]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

d74c1055dcd0b16d96adc3> > >> > >> Regards, > >> > > > > To clarify: It won't be possible to run the non-updated (tagged?) core > > ITs against Maven >= 3.5.0. This is what made us reset the branches. You > > need to review this, if you are going to run the non-updated ITs against > > what will be voted for release. > > > > @Anton Tanasenko: > > If what I just wrote is incorrect, please comment here. Thank you. > > > > Regards, > > > > Merged to master. > > -- Regards, Anton.

Re: [IT MNG-5958 - Take 2]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

is what made us reset the branches. You > need to review this, if you are going to run the non-updated ITs against > what will be voted for release. > > @Anton Tanasenko: > If what I just wrote is incorrect, please comment here. Thank you. > > Regards, > Merged to master. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: Please delete branches after merge to master

They will get cleaned up eventually... though with the custom workspace locator in multibranch I am not 100% confident ;-) On Thu 26 Jan 2017 at 19:05, Arnaud Héritier wrote: > It's a new feature ? > Because workspaces were never removed on jobs removals AFAIR ? > > Le jeu. 26 janv. 2017 à 18:21

Re: Please delete branches after merge to master

It's a new feature ? Because workspaces were never removed on jobs removals AFAIR ? Le jeu. 26 janv. 2017 à 18:21, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> a écrit : > It should... but may not if the node was off-line > > On 26 January 2017 at 16:37, Christian Schulte wrote: > > > Doe

Re: Please delete branches after merge to master

It should... but may not if the node was off-line On 26 January 2017 at 16:37, Christian Schulte wrote: > Does this also purge all workspaces on all nodes? > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For a

Re: Please delete branches after merge to master

Does this also purge all workspaces on all nodes? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Please delete branches after merge to master

Re: [IT MNG-5958 - Take 2]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

16d96adc3> > > Regards, > To clarify: It won't be possible to run the non-updated (tagged?) core ITs against Maven >= 3.5.0. This is what made us reset the branches. You need to review this, if you are going to run the non-updated ITs against what will be voted

Re: [IT MNG-5958 - Take 2]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

Am 01/16/17 um 02:48 schrieb Christian Schulte: > Commit to review is here: > > > > If no one objects until Thursday, 19th, 2017, I'll merge it to master. > > Regards, >

Re: please review MNG-5904 branch - Remove the whole Ant Build

picky, but true done Regards, Hervé Le dimanche 22 janvier 2017, 19:49:47 CET Michael Osipov a écrit : > Am 2017-01-22 um 17:50 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: > > everything is in the title > > > > more than removal of Ant build, what I want to have in master quite fast > > is > > the equivalent > > m

Re: please review MNG-5904 branch - Remove the whole Ant Build

Am 2017-01-22 um 19:58 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise: Hi, On 22/01/17 19:49, Michael Osipov wrote: Am 2017-01-22 um 17:50 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: everything is in the title more than removal of Ant build, what I want to have in master quite fast is the equivalent mvn -DdistributionTargetFolder="

Re: please review MNG-5904 branch - Remove the whole Ant Build

Am 2017-01-22 um 19:58 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise: Hi, On 22/01/17 19:49, Michael Osipov wrote: Am 2017-01-22 um 17:50 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: everything is in the title more than removal of Ant build, what I want to have in master quite fast is the equivalent mvn -DdistributionTargetFolder="

Re: please review MNG-5904 branch - Remove the whole Ant Build

Hi, On 22/01/17 19:49, Michael Osipov wrote: Am 2017-01-22 um 17:50 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: everything is in the title more than removal of Ant build, what I want to have in master quite fast is the equivalent mvn -DdistributionTargetFolder="xxx" clean package It should be DdistributionTarget

Re: please review MNG-5904 branch - Remove the whole Ant Build

Am 2017-01-22 um 17:50 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: everything is in the title more than removal of Ant build, what I want to have in master quite fast is the equivalent mvn -DdistributionTargetFolder="xxx" clean package It should be DdistributionTargetDirectory, folder is a Windows concept from Ex

please review MNG-5904 branch - Remove the whole Ant Build

everything is in the title more than removal of Ant build, what I want to have in master quite fast is the equivalent mvn -DdistributionTargetFolder="xxx" clean package Regards, Hervé - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@

Re: [IT MNG-5958 - Take 2]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

Am 01/20/17 um 01:02 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > Ok in that case create a throwaway fork of your branch with changes that > uses the changed integration tests > > If that passes we can throw away the throwaway branch and merge both.

Re: [IT MNG-5958 - Take 2]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

Ok in that case create a throwaway fork of your branch with changes that uses the changed integration tests If that passes we can throw away the throwaway branch and merge both. (Need for throwaway branch will go away soon... I'm just trying to bash bugs in updates to Jenkins plugins to enable th

Re: [IT MNG-5958 - Take 2]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

Am 01/20/17 um 00:30 schrieb Christian Schulte: > Am 01/20/17 um 00:09 schrieb Anton Tanasenko: >> New ITs should run successfully against 3.3.9 and 3.5.0-SNAPSHOT+changes. >> It doesn't make sense to test a feature which is not in. > > The Maven core master branch of the maven-jenkinsfile job is

Re: [IT MNG-5958 - Take 2]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

Am 01/20/17 um 00:09 schrieb Anton Tanasenko: > New ITs should run successfully against 3.3.9 and 3.5.0-SNAPSHOT+changes. > It doesn't make sense to test a feature which is not in. The Maven core master branch of the maven-jenkinsfile job is at 3.5.0-SNAPSHOT. If the updated ITs are run (from the

Re: [IT MNG-5958 - Take 2]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

New ITs should run successfully against 3.3.9 and 3.5.0-SNAPSHOT+changes. It doesn't make sense to test a feature which is not in. 2017-01-19 22:46 GMT+02:00 Christian Schulte : > Am 01/19/17 um 13:06 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > > Ideal would be to create a *new throw-away branch* that is forked

Re: [IT MNG-5958 - Take 2]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

Am 01/19/17 um 13:06 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > Ideal would be to create a *new throw-away branch* that is forked from > current master and just changes the itBranch in the Jenkinsfile to the > integration test branch you want to merge. To verify the changes to the ITs are working without any cha

Re: [IT MNG-5958 - Take 2]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

s documented in the initial review request > thread on this mailing list. > > Could you also verify the ranges used in the updated tests, please? > > Regards, > -- > Christian > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >

Re: [IT MNG-5958 - Take 2]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

erge so that there is only one single commit going to the master branch? The failing IT just shows that there are changes in core making an existing IT fail. This is documented in the initial review request thread on this mailing list. Could you also verify the ranges used in the updated tests, p

Re: [IT MNG-5958 - Take 2]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

This will all be easier once JENKINS-40906 is fixed fully and available on builds.apache.org On 19 January 2017 at 11:37, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you need to run against a different IT branch, then change > https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/master/Jenkin

Re: [IT MNG-5958 - Take 2]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

If you need to run against a different IT branch, then change https://github.com/apache/maven/blob/master/Jenkinsfile#L22 to point to the branch on integration tests here are the options: 1. (Ideal option) Create a *throwaway* branch on maven.git specifically for the integration test run where you

Re: [IT MNG-5958 - Take 2]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

https://builds.apache.org/job/maven-jenkinsfile/job/MNG-5958/ is failing Do not commit without showing a passing build On 19 January 2017 at 11:12, Christian Schulte wrote: > Am 16.01.2017 um 02:48 schrieb Christian Schulte: > > Commit to review is here: > > > >

Re: [IT MNG-5958 - Take 2]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

Am 16.01.2017 um 02:48 schrieb Christian Schulte: > Commit to review is here: > > > > If no one objects until Thursday, 19th, 2017, I'll merge it to master. If no one obj

Please review 3.5.0-candidate JIRA issues.

I just looked at the issues with a fix version of 3.5.0-candidate. If not already done, I'd like to second the following issues: MNG-5837 Syntax error in bin/mvn on Solaris SPARC MNG-5823

[IT MNG-5958 - Take 2]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

Commit to review is here: If no one objects until Thursday, 19th, 2017, I'll merge it to master. Regards, -- Christian -

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

Am 01/16/17 um 00:06 schrieb Anton Tanasenko: > I've submitted the PR for MNG-5958 branch. > Changed the existing 5805 IT to work for 3.3.9 only ('phases' syntax), and > duplicated it to a one that works with 3.3.9+ ('lifecyclePhases' syntax). Thanks. I just committed this to the MNG-5958 branch.

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

I've submitted the PR for MNG-5958 branch. Changed the existing 5805 IT to work for 3.3.9 only ('phases' syntax), and duplicated it to a one that works with 3.3.9+ ('lifecyclePhases' syntax). 2017-01-11 22:59 GMT+02:00 Christian Schulte : > Am 01/11/17 um 15:05 schrieb Anton Tanasenko: > > I'll s

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

Am 01/11/17 um 15:05 schrieb Anton Tanasenko: > I'll submit a PR in these couple of days, if it waits a little bit. No hurry here. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

xpected/new/correct behaviour helps to track what behaviour got > invalidated by what release. It's not that much extra work since you can > copy the old test over to a new class and just need to change some bits > to make it fit. Please either create a pull request or attach a pat

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

unchanged with an upper bound and a new test in paralle testing the expected/new/correct behaviour helps to track what behaviour got invalidated by what release. It's not that much extra work since you can copy the old test over to a new class and just need to change some bits to make it fit.

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

I remember MNG-5805 and noticed the change of the signature. I expected this code to be Maven-internal only, so it looked fine to me. Now it seems it is not. We had the same issue when improving toolchains, which required a signature change as well (being able to merge global with user to

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

It sounds to me that the intent for 3.3.9 was that it would work with and the test confirmed it as working that way. As such the impression I get is that this is neither a false positive nor a false negative test. There should have been a test for 3.3.9, and we are intentionally changing the beh

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

3.3.9 (in 5805) introduced an additional syntax for specifying lifecycle goals as '<..>' in addition to '<...>[goals as text]', but due to implementation, it was also supported using the 'phases' parent node and the test was using that one as well. This broke binary compatibility, which is fixed in

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

I'll rephrase. That test is currently passing on 3.3.9. Why? If that testing passing on 3.3.9 because 3.3.9 was (badly) designed to work that way? If yes then the test stays, change the range to [3.3.9,3.5.0) and duplicate the test with the duplicate having the change and the range being [3.5.0,)

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

So 5805 should be marked as only for [3.3.9] and then copy it for the rephrased version On Tue 10 Jan 2017 at 06:17, Anton Tanasenko wrote: > Looks about right. > > > > Stephen, the change to MNG-5805 test as part of MNG-5958 was intentional, > > since I broke binary compat in the initial implem

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

Looks about right. Stephen, the change to MNG-5805 test as part of MNG-5958 was intentional, since I broke binary compat in the initial implementation of the feature. The changed test should also work with 3.3.9 which supported both 'phases' and 'lifecyclePhases' for the extended config, while aft

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

Hi, forgot to add those email addresses in the CC. Sending it again with the authors in the CC. Am 01/10/17 um 00:59 schrieb Christian Schulte: > Am 01/10/17 um 00:40 schrieb Stephen Connolly: >> It seems you are modifying an existing test: >> https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

Am 01/10/17 um 00:40 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > It seems you are modifying an existing test: > https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/blob/8852538208e508fdc7b58d6332ca683bfc0c9373/core-it-support/core-it-plugins/mng5805-extension/src/main/resources/META-INF/plexus/components.xml > >

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >