On 18/09/2007, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it makes sense to release 2.0.8 as is. When Herve comes back
> he can roll in his encoding changes. That will fix the biggies for
> 2.0.8, there's a couple things I will fix, anything else anyone wants
> to tackle and then we can rel
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:12 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Using Maven Artifact in 2.0.x
On 18 Sep 07, at 9:22 AM 18 Sep 07, Mark Hobson wrote:
On 12/09/2007, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That sounds like a reasonable plan of actio
I'd like to get MNG-2277 fixed in 2.0.8, then most of my enforcer issues
go away. Otherwise I need to work around it.
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 1:12 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Using Maven Artifa
On 18 Sep 07, at 9:22 AM 18 Sep 07, Mark Hobson wrote:
On 12/09/2007, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That sounds like a reasonable plan of action. It's the long term that
matters for maintenance. Another release with the old code has no
downside in the short term.
So are we agreed
On 12/09/2007, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That sounds like a reasonable plan of action. It's the long term that
> matters for maintenance. Another release with the old code has no
> downside in the short term.
So are we agreed on a 2.0.8 release before making 2.0.x use
maven-artifa
On 11 Sep 07, at 10:13 AM 11 Sep 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
On 9/11/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11 Sep 07, at 9:25 AM 11 Sep 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
i'd like to see 2.0.8 released with the old artifact code and then
2.0.9 with the new one so we have a clear checkpoint t
On 9/11/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 11 Sep 07, at 9:25 AM 11 Sep 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>
> > i'd like to see 2.0.8 released with the old artifact code and then
> > 2.0.9 with the new one so we have a clear checkpoint to easily know if
> > there are problems with the new
On 11 Sep 07, at 9:25 AM 11 Sep 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
i'd like to see 2.0.8 released with the old artifact code and then
2.0.9 with the new one so we have a clear checkpoint to easily know if
there are problems with the new approach
How is 2.0.7 not a clear point?
And if a few of us are
Yes, I would think it is a good plan to see as much shared between
2.0.x and 2.1 as possible, except the core codebase of course ;)
Andy
On 11 Sep 2007, at 03:40, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
How do people feel about trying to use maven-artifact in 2.0.x?
The code has not changed, and backward
i'd like to see 2.0.8 released with the old artifact code and then
2.0.9 with the new one so we have a clear checkpoint to easily know if
there are problems with the new approach
On 9/10/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> How do people feel about trying to use maven-artifact in
On 11/09/2007, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do people feel about trying to use maven-artifact in 2.0.x?
>
> The code has not changed, and backward compatibility will be
> maintained, and from Mark's trials it appears to work. Is this
> correct Mark? The ITs run using the decoupled
I think it's a good idea. The risk is it delays 2.0.8 a little longer,
but the benefit of getting there sooner and being compatible with the
changes in 2.1 shouldn't be underestimated.
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:41
I definitely think it's worth being able to test it and the approach
below is right. I don't think committing to anything is necessary yet.
I think the decision about whether to change it is as much based on
what the evolution of maven-artifact is as anything else.
- Brett
On 11/09/2007, a
13 matches
Mail list logo
