Anything is up for discussion, of course...but I just wanted to mention that
changing the syntax of the POM will have to wait until Maven 2.1 at the
soonest.
Sorry to rain on the parade.
-j
On 10/24/06, Rahul Thakur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Can we have an element like:
Hi,
Can we have an element like:
true
in the pom.xml where the notifiers are being setup defaulting it to
'false' if none is defined. A value of 'true' implies the notifier is a
ProjectGroup notifier and all child modules inherit it, 'false' that the
notifier is project l
Then I think s'cool.
Christian.
Jesse McConnell wrote:
> yes, correct
>
> the P4 notifiers would be applied to P4-P5-P6
>
> jesse
>
> On 10/24/06, Christian Edward Gruber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hmm. Even though the "below the watermark" notifiers are attached "per
>> project", I still thi
yes, correct
the P4 notifiers would be applied to P4-P5-P6
jesse
On 10/24/06, Christian Edward Gruber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hmm. Even though the "below the watermark" notifiers are attached "per
project", I still think that notifiers defined in intermediary parents
should be applied to e
Hmm. Even though the "below the watermark" notifiers are attached "per
project", I still think that notifiers defined in intermediary parents
should be applied to each child project. True?
Christian
Christian Edward Gruber wrote:
> The above/below scheme makes sense to me.
>
> Christian.
>
> Je
The above/below scheme makes sense to me.
Christian.
Jesse McConnell wrote:
>>
>> My only slight reservation would be if group-level notifiers can act
>> differently than project-level notifiers. If that's the case, then the
>> behavior of Continuum builds will differ based on which POM is used
>
