On 1/8/10, Dan Fabulich wrote:
> Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>
>> I will re-add your stuff, and I will also set it up to use my output
>> demultiplexer that causes output to appear in "normal" order.
>
> Does the demultiplexer do anything in weave mode when threads=1? Does it
> make the projects ap
Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
I will re-add your stuff, and I will also set it up to use my output
demultiplexer that causes output to appear in "normal" order.
Does the demultiplexer do anything in weave mode when threads=1? Does it
make the projects appear to unweave (as far as the log is conc
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> On 7 Jan 2010, at 23:20, Barrie Treloar wrote:
>
>>> Currently you can only say "compile" is outputDependenant upon itself,
>>> meaning it'll wait for "compile" in all upstream projects to finish
>>> before proceeding. We also need to be
Sent from my [rhymes with tryPod] ;-)
On 7 Jan 2010, at 23:20, Barrie Treloar wrote:
Currently you can only say "compile" is outputDependenant upon
itself,
meaning it'll wait for "compile" in all upstream projects to finish
before proceeding. We also need to be able to specify the explicit
> Currently you can only say "compile" is outputDependenant upon itself,
> meaning it'll wait for "compile" in all upstream projects to finish
> before proceeding. We also need to be able to specify the explicit
> target of the dependency, so you could say "test" is outputDependant on
> "compile" i
2010/1/7 Kristian Rosenvold :
> On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 10:17 +, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
>> Side note:
>>
>> Now that sounds like the concurrency code I wrote to convert from
>> Accurev to Subversion
>>
>> I actually ended up creating the state of a stream at a specific
>> revision because
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 10:17 +, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> Side note:
>
> Now that sounds like the concurrency code I wrote to convert from
> Accurev to Subversion
>
> I actually ended up creating the state of a stream at a specific
> revision because it was asked for (by a downstream stre
2010/1/7 Kristian Rosenvold :
> On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 08:37 +, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>> > I realized that the prime subject of contention is the injected
>> > resources - maybe ONLY that. So "scheduling" attached to phases or
>> > plugins is really ultimately not the prime target. When think
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 08:37 +, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> > I realized that the prime subject of contention is the injected
> > resources - maybe ONLY that. So "scheduling" attached to phases or
> > plugins is really ultimately not the prime target. When thinking of
> > Dan's Antrun plugin requ
On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 18:36 -0800, Dan Fabulich wrote:
> Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>
> > In this process I removed your original implementation, simply because
> > it allowed me to work freely in simplifying my own implementation (and I
> > truly believe I managed to make some good simplifications
2010/1/7 Kristian Rosenvold :
> On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 08:26 +1100, Brett Porter wrote:
>> On 07/01/2010, at 1:16 AM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 13:41 +, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>> >> however you might have to wait for "install" as the attached artifact
>> >> can be
On 07/01/2010, at 6:45 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>>
>> Is the way this is designed something that's potentially reusable outside of
>> Maven in an embedded scenario? Continuum currently builds Maven projects
>> module by module, with some crude parallelism and the old project sorter.
>> T
On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 08:26 +1100, Brett Porter wrote:
> On 07/01/2010, at 1:16 AM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 13:41 +, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> >> however you might have to wait for "install" as the attached artifact
> >> can be replaced in the reactor, e.g. maven-
Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
In this process I removed your original implementation, simply because
it allowed me to work freely in simplifying my own implementation (and I
truly believe I managed to make some good simplifications). I also
considered that I'd re-add your implementation as a third s
On 07/01/2010, at 1:16 AM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 13:41 +, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>> however you might have to wait for "install" as the attached artifact
>> can be replaced in the reactor, e.g. maven-shade-plugin could be
>> replacing the artifact with its shaded
On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 13:41 +, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> however you might have to wait for "install" as the attached artifact
> can be replaced in the reactor, e.g. maven-shade-plugin could be
> replacing the artifact with its shaded version
>
> you only know by the time you hit install (or t
2010/1/6 Kristian Rosenvold :
> On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 22:36 +1100, Brett Porter wrote:
>> On 06/01/2010, at 10:15 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>>
>> > - Given that parallel execution is an "alternate" mode that may have
>> > additional constraints, does 3.0 need something that is guaranteed to
>>
On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 22:36 +1100, Brett Porter wrote:
> On 06/01/2010, at 10:15 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
>
> > - Given that parallel execution is an "alternate" mode that may have
> > additional constraints, does 3.0 need something that is guaranteed to
> > work for the vast majority of proj
On 06/01/2010, at 10:15 PM, Kristian Rosenvold wrote:
> - Given that parallel execution is an "alternate" mode that may have
> additional constraints, does 3.0 need something that is guaranteed to
> work for the vast majority of projects ? I think Dan's implementation
> does this already, while t
Cool. I'll do the *simple* clarifications first:
Without a threads argument it behaves like a totally standard M3. All
integration tests pass, and I spent a lot of energy to make sure I
didn't break anything. So in answer to (1), it builds maven3 without
threading. With threading is a different s
1) I'm encountering some integration failures in my build at work when
using -Dmaven.threads.experimental=1; I'll try to turn them into proper
bugs in the next few days.
2) In the documentation on http://github.com/krosenvold/maven3/ it says
that it does not yet build Maven 3. Does this mea
21 matches
Mail list logo
