When I reinstalled 2.0.10-RC5, it ran fine. Then I realized my
reinstall didn't include my custom settings.xml, but once I put that
back into /conf, everything went bonkers again. So that's where the
problem is.
You can reproduce the problem by doing the following:
- Edit the original settings.xml
I should add this happens to me unconditionally. No goals, no matter
what they are, will execute.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Paul Benedict <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tried RC5 and got this weird error.
>
>>c:\dev\apache-maven-2.0.10-RC5\bin\mvn.bat site:deploy
> --
I tried RC5 and got this weird error.
>c:\dev\apache-maven-2.0.10-RC5\bin\mvn.bat site:deploy
---
constituent[0]:
file:/c:/Dev/apache-maven-2.0.10-RC5/bin/../lib/maven-2.0.10-RC5-uber.jar
---
java.lang.
Okay, I'm working on the performance problems with concrete/dynamic
transitions...that'll probably affect this issue (at least its location,
just a guess).
I have a couple of other perf-related issues that I've fixed related to
interpolation that were suggested by olamy and bentmann on IRC yes
Perhaps we can also update hudson.
There are few bug solved concerning maven :
https://hudson.dev.java.net/changelog.html
We are in 1.137
Arnaud
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Benjamin Bentmann <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
>
>> http://people.apache.org/~jdcasey/stage/apache-maven/2
Hi John,
http://people.apache.org/~jdcasey/stage/apache-maven/2.0.10-RC5/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/2.0.10-RC5
Brian was so kind to install RC5 on Hudson and Arnaud has setup the job
"Maven-Plugins-CI" to run with it. The build #22 [0] showed a NPE coming
from DefaultPluginManager.java:70
Is there any chance that because Java 1.4 must be supported, the large
time increase is because of syncronized StringBuffer? Could that be
affecting the aggressive interpolation? I'd like to know what happens
if 1.5 StringBuilder was being used.
Paul
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Jason van Zyl
On 5-Aug-08, at 9:31 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
Jason,
On Tuesday 05 August 2008 9:37:08 am Jason van Zyl wrote:
Can you load up CXF and try it with 2.0.9 and and the RC? I will
setup
something on Hudson tonight, it collects times so we can check it
there.
With the profiles that I use to do
I agree. It looks like we have a real problem here that needs to be
addressed before we go forward.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Kulp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:32 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.0.10-RC5
Jason,
On Tuesday 05
Jason,
On Tuesday 05 August 2008 9:37:08 am Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Can you load up CXF and try it with 2.0.9 and and the RC? I will setup
> something on Hudson tonight, it collects times so we can check it there.
With the profiles that I use to do deploys and stuff (which involves the
javadoc a
Dan,
Can you load up CXF and try it with 2.0.9 and and the RC? I will setup
something on Hudson tonight, it collects times so we can check it there.
On 5-Aug-08, at 5:01 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Tuesday 05 August 2008 5:54:26 am Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Maur
On Tuesday 05 August 2008 5:54:26 am Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Mauro Talevi
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So a 20% increase on the original time - which is acceptable IMO for the
> > sake of reproducibility. Certainly not a 300% increase.
>
> For me, this might
Hi Brett,
Brett Porter wrote:
> I think it's something to put in the RC post, focus on testing:
> - interpolation
> - deployment and proxies
> - any reproducible, consistent speed degradation
>
> It would probably still be worth inspecting the performance with a
> tool sucha s yourkit... Jörg is
Hi Mauro,
Mauro Talevi wrote:
> John Casey wrote:
>> I've checked the maven core and plugins builds, and they're both
>> running around 30s longer than with 2.0.9, with slightly less memory
>> consumption. Other builds I've tried are running nearer to +15s over
>> 2.0.9.
>>
>
> Here's a benchma
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Mauro Talevi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So a 20% increase on the original time - which is acceptable IMO for the
> sake of reproducibility. Certainly not a 300% increase.
For me, this might be sufficient reason not to upgrade.
Jochen
--
Look, that's why there
--Original Message-
> From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 12:49 PM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: Re: Maven 2.0.10-RC5
>
> I've checked the maven core and plugins builds, and they're both running
> around 30s longer tha
John Casey wrote:
I've checked the maven core and plugins builds, and they're both running
around 30s longer than with 2.0.9, with slightly less memory
consumption. Other builds I've tried are running nearer to +15s over 2.0.9.
Here's a benchmark done on a sizeable project:
2.0.9
[INFO] Tota
if anyone else has issues.
-Original Message-
From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 12:49 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.0.10-RC5
I've checked the maven core and plugins builds, and they're both
running
around 30s longer than wi
, 2008 12:49 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.0.10-RC5
I've checked the maven core and plugins builds, and they're both running
around 30s longer than with 2.0.9, with slightly less memory
consumption. Other builds I've tried are running nearer to +15s over 2.0.
I agree with John Casey that a predictable fix is more important than
a speedy build time. However, I am surprised that the one guy's build
went from 45m to 3 hours! That's a huge leap. The only thing I can
suggest is to pull something out of the Microsoft Windows development
book: the use of compa
es
to 2.1 where they can be handled correctly. The majority of users
probably aren't getting hit by these bugs, so forcing the performance
hit on them will appear as a regression, not an improvement.
-Original Message-
From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August
ed correctly. The majority of users
probably aren't getting hit by these bugs, so forcing the performance
hit on them will appear as a regression, not an improvement.
-Original Message-
From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August
04, 2008 10:18 AM
To: Maven Devel
an improvement.
-Original Message-
From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 10:18 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.0.10-RC5
Brett,
This change was in place long before the javadoc plugin problem of the
last RC. The problem happens when f
appear as a regression, not
an improvement.
-Original Message-
From: John Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 10:18 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.0.10-RC5
Brett,
This change was in place long before the javadoc plugin problem of the
la
Brett,
This change was in place long before the javadoc plugin problem of the
last RC. The problem happens when forking at times, too, since those
forked lifecycles sometimes require alternative target directory, etc.
If that information has already been interpolated, changeing target
directo
Hey John,
Is it necessary for the project on every execution? I thought this was
just for ${reactorProjects} - which could be handled on demand in the
PPEE?
It might be worth running the profiler over it too to see if there are
any particular hotspots that could improved regardless.
- B
This may have to do with some very inefficient code I had to put in to
solve MNG-3530. It's doing interpolation of the build section of the POM
per-plugin now, and restoring it to the dynamic state just after each
plugin executes. This was necessary to allow modifications to the
project instanc
Hi,
John Casey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's your daily dose of Maven 2.0.10! I've fixed the regressions
> pointed out in RC4, and added integration tests to guard
> against their
> reintroduction. The new release candidate can be found here:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~jdcasey/stage/apache-maven/2.
John,
regression has been fixed on Pico build.
Cheers
John Casey wrote:
Hi,
Here's your daily dose of Maven 2.0.10! I've fixed the regressions
pointed out in RC4, and added integration tests to guard against their
reintroduction. The new release candidate can be found here:
http://people.
Thanks John! Javadoc is happy now!
Cheers,
Vincent
2008/8/1 John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> Here's your daily dose of Maven 2.0.10! I've fixed the regressions pointed
> out in RC4, and added integration tests to guard against their
> reintroduction. The new release candidate can be fou
30 matches
Mail list logo
