Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 08/01/2004 01:57:34 AM:
> On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 09:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/01/2004 09:09:01 AM:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > run from the touchstone or the bootstrap isn't acceptable. It's
silly to
> > > ha
On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 09:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/01/2004 08:36:28 AM:
>
> > Currently there is no real way to distinguish between a public property
> > and a private one even though in most cases they are almost always
> > public.
>
> Aren't pr
On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 09:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/01/2004 09:09:01 AM:
>
> [snip]
> > run from the touchstone or the bootstrap isn't acceptable. It's silly to
> > have to bootstrap in order to test a plugin.
>
> You do know that you don't need t
Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/01/2004 08:36:28 AM:
> Currently there is no real way to distinguish between a public property
> and a private one even though in most cases they are almost always
> public.
Aren't properties in a plugin's project.properties not overrideable?
--
dIon
Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 07/01/2004 09:09:01 AM:
[snip]
> run from the touchstone or the bootstrap isn't acceptable. It's silly to
> have to bootstrap in order to test a plugin.
You do know that you don't need to bootstrap to run plugin:test, right?
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Co
x27;s plugin:test.
No problem.
> - Brett
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 7 January 2004 9:09 AM
> > To: Maven Developers List
> > Subject: RE: cvs commit: maven-plugins/announcement plugin
> You're right that the docs suck and this would be one way to try and
> enforce it. If there are no public properties then that would have to be
> explicitly stated too.
>
I am all for not only explicitly stating public properties(+1) but also for
a) stating public goals
b) expressing constrains
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, 7 January 2004 9:09 AM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: RE: cvs commit: maven-plugins/announcement plugin.properties
>
>
> On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 17:03, Brett Porter wrote:
> > Ok. If we clean up all our pl
have to bootstrap in order to test a plugin.
> Thanks,
> Brett
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 7 January 2004 9:01 AM
> > To: Maven Developers List
> > Subject: RE: cvs commit: maven-
Message-
> From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, 7 January 2004 9:01 AM
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: RE: cvs commit: maven-plugins/announcement plugin.properties
>
>
> On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 16:56, Brett Porter wrote:
> > Jason,
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 16:56, Brett Porter wrote:
> Jason,
>
> Even if this is deprecated behaviour, it needs to continue working for 1.0
> doesn't it?
Yup, it does. I'm just cleaning up our plugins.
> - Brett
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jason,
Even if this is deprecated behaviour, it needs to continue working for 1.0
doesn't it?
- Brett
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, 7 January 2004 7:49 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: cvs commit: maven-plugins/announcem
plugins!
-Original Message-
From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 3:42 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: RE: cvs commit: maven-plugins/announcement plugin.properties
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 16:36, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> > I think we need som
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 16:36, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> > I think we need something more. Making it mandatory for the plugin to
> > work would be better I think.
>
> Currently there is no real way to distinguish between a public property
> and a private one even though in most cases they are almost a
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 16:26, Vincent Massol wrote:
> The problem is that, as you know, documentation is far from reality...
> :-)
That is now the problem of the plugin developers, but I agree it has
been a problem in the past.
> Just look at existing plugin documentation and you'll see that the
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason van Zyl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 06 January 2004 22:12
> To: Maven Developers List
> Subject: RE: cvs commit: maven-plugins/announcement plugin.properties
>
> On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 15:52, Vincent Massol wrote:
> >
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 15:52, Vincent Massol wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> There was one nice benefit of having properties defined in
> plugin.properties: it was clearly stating what properties where public
> and what were private. By removing them you are removing this "feature".
>
> How can we restore
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 15:52, Vincent Massol wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> There was one nice benefit of having properties defined in
> plugin.properties: it was clearly stating what properties where public
> and what were private. By removing them you are removing this "feature".
>
> How can we restore
Hi Jason,
There was one nice benefit of having properties defined in
plugin.properties: it was clearly stating what properties where public
and what were private. By removing them you are removing this "feature".
How can we restore this?
Thanks
-Vincent
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMA
19 matches
Mail list logo
