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
16 matches
Mail list logo
