Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 20-Jun-08, at 11:54 PM, Oleg Gusakov wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
On 19/06/2008, at 11:50 PM, Oleg Gusakov wrote:
Paul Gier wrote:
Oleg, are there any overview type docs on the wiki of how the new
resolver will work? I'd like to see an overview before I start
Brett Porter wrote:
On 21/06/2008, at 2:54 PM, Oleg Gusakov wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
On 19/06/2008, at 11:50 PM, Oleg Gusakov wrote:
Paul Gier wrote:
Oleg, are there any overview type docs on the wiki of how the new
resolver will work? I'd like to see an overview before I start
On 20-Jun-08, at 11:54 PM, Oleg Gusakov wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
On 19/06/2008, at 11:50 PM, Oleg Gusakov wrote:
Paul Gier wrote:
Oleg, are there any overview type docs on the wiki of how the new
resolver will work? I'd like to see an overview before I start
digging through the c
On 21/06/2008, at 2:54 PM, Oleg Gusakov wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
On 19/06/2008, at 11:50 PM, Oleg Gusakov wrote:
Paul Gier wrote:
Oleg, are there any overview type docs on the wiki of how the new
resolver will work? I'd like to see an overview before I start
digging through the c
Brett Porter wrote:
On 19/06/2008, at 11:50 PM, Oleg Gusakov wrote:
Paul Gier wrote:
Oleg, are there any overview type docs on the wiki of how the new
resolver will work? I'd like to see an overview before I start
digging through the code. I'm specifically interested in how
version ra
On 19/06/2008, at 11:50 PM, Oleg Gusakov wrote:
Paul Gier wrote:
Oleg, are there any overview type docs on the wiki of how the new
resolver will work? I'd like to see an overview before I start
digging through the code. I'm specifically interested in how
version ranges are handled in
Paul Gier wrote:
Oleg, are there any overview type docs on the wiki of how the new
resolver will work? I'd like to see an overview before I start
digging through the code. I'm specifically interested in how version
ranges are handled in transitive dependencies. Like if you have
multiple p
Oleg, are there any overview type docs on the wiki of how the new resolver will
work? I'd like to see an overview before I start digging through the code. I'm
specifically interested in how version ranges are handled in transitive
dependencies. Like if you have multiple paths to the same arti
I have a concern about the conflict resolution piece. SAT based resolver
in the sandbox branch works differently from the old one, and as such -
it may break a few builds that rely on bugs in the old resolver.
Secondly - I am trying to build up the test foundation for it - try it
on really big
SAT based resolver in the sandbox branch works differently from the old
one, and as such - it may break a few builds that rely on bugs in the
old resolver. And we need to test is more thoroughly.
The next release will still use old resolver, but the intermediate,
pre-SAT graph-based solution w
On 18-Jun-08, at 8:29 PM, Dan Fabulich wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
3.0-alpha-1: released as is, with or without those few fixes I was
looking at getting in.
3.0-alpha-X: later introduce the mercury and SAT based stuff as an
optional component
3.0: when all the above is stable and the resolu
Brett Porter wrote:
On 19/06/2008, at 11:29 AM, Dan Fabulich wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
3.0-alpha-1: released as is, with or without those few fixes I was
looking at getting in.
3.0-alpha-X: later introduce the mercury and SAT based stuff as an
optional component
3.0: when all the above is
On 19/06/2008, at 11:29 AM, Dan Fabulich wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
3.0-alpha-1: released as is, with or without those few fixes I was
looking at getting in.
3.0-alpha-X: later introduce the mercury and SAT based stuff as an
optional component
3.0: when all the above is stable and the resol
Brett Porter wrote:
3.0-alpha-1: released as is, with or without those few fixes I was looking at
getting in.
3.0-alpha-X: later introduce the mercury and SAT based stuff as an optional
component
3.0: when all the above is stable and the resolution method is selectable
Is that how everyone se
On 18-Jun-08, at 5:12 PM, Dan Fabulich wrote:
Oleg Gusakov wrote:
SAT based resolver in the sandbox branch works differently from the
old one, and as such - it may break a few builds that rely on bugs
in the old resolver.
I think we know it will break builds that rely on bugs in the old
On 18-Jun-08, at 5:02 PM, Oleg Gusakov wrote:
SAT based resolver in the sandbox branch works differently from the
old one, and as such - it may break a few builds that rely on bugs
in the old resolver. And we need to test is more thoroughly.
You can't use this in maven-artifact yet. SAT
On 19/06/2008, at 3:47 AM, Brian E. Fox wrote:
If we are merging in the branch jason/oleg have been working on, then
the issues I mentioned are moot as they occurred in the old code. That
said, I would expect Oleg or Jason to push the release forward given
that they know the full status.
I do
On 19/06/2008, at 8:36 AM, Oleg Gusakov wrote:
Are there additional tests we could write today?
For SAT based resolver we need to
1). proof-run it against big artifacts (like maven-core, for
instance) and make sure it resolves all the transitives correctly.
Ideally - run against a represen
Dan Fabulich wrote:
Oleg Gusakov wrote:
SAT based resolver in the sandbox branch works differently from the
old one, and as such - it may break a few builds that rely on bugs in
the old resolver.
I think we know it will break builds that rely on bugs in the old
resolver, right?
Yes.
An
Oleg Gusakov wrote:
SAT based resolver in the sandbox branch works differently from the old one,
and as such - it may break a few builds that rely on bugs in the old
resolver.
I think we know it will break builds that rely on bugs in the old
resolver, right?
And we need to test is more th
SAT based resolver in the sandbox branch works differently from the old
one, and as such - it may break a few builds that rely on bugs in the
old resolver. And we need to test is more thoroughly.
The next release will still use old resolver, but the intermediate,
pre-SAT graph-based solution w
If we are merging in the branch jason/oleg have been working on, then
the issues I mentioned are moot as they occurred in the old code. That
said, I would expect Oleg or Jason to push the release forward given
that they know the full status.
-Original Message-
From: Brett Porter [mailto:[E
On 18-Jun-08, at 10:23 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
Hi,
I've fixed the code to make double deployment fail properly. Once
that is made configurable, there are no open issues for MARTIFACT
3.0 alpha 1.
MNG-3456, 3617, 3599, 3423, 3352, are on my list to check next
as they are artifact-3
23 matches
Mail list logo
