On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 22:02 +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
Currently there is only a SNAPSHOT POM for commons proper: In other
words, a release of commons-fileupload can only choose to ignore the
hierarchy and derive from the Apache POM directly or it can wait for
an official release of the
On 11/6/06, Simon Kitching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This thread from 12 October 2006 appears to have tailed off without
conclusion:
It's of course my fault not to post a conclusion. But my personal
conclusion is that the vote failed. First of all, due to negative
votes, and second, because
Simon Kitching wrote:
On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 22:02 +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
Currently there is only a SNAPSHOT POM for commons proper: In other
words, a release of commons-fileupload can only choose to ignore the
hierarchy and derive from the Apache POM directly or it can wait for
an
On 10/16/06, Dennis Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jörg Schaible wrote:
Jochen Wiedmann wrote on Monday, October 16, 2006 12:25 PM:
On 10/16/06, Jörg Schaible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
can you (or anyone else) tell my, why there's a
configuration for the IDEA plugin included, especially
Hi, Dennis,
On 10/16/06, Dennis Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you have patches for any Maven plugins just send me an email and I'll
commit them, provided that they have tests to verify what is being
fixed. I can help with creating the tests if necessary.
see MSOURCES-6; these aren't
Hi Jochen,
can you (or anyone else) tell my, why there's a configuration for the IDEA
plugin included, especially setting JDK to 1.3? Some commons are no longer JDK
1.3 specific ...
- Jörg
Jochen Wiedmann wrote on Thursday, October 12, 2006 1:59 PM:
Hi,
as already discussed on
On 10/16/06, Jörg Schaible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
can you (or anyone else) tell my, why there's a configuration for the IDEA
plugin included, especially setting JDK to 1.3? Some commons are no longer JDK
1.3 specific ...
Basically, I have no problems with adding IDE specific stuff to the
I'm -1 on it as it stands, as I have a few problems with the proposed POM:
- remove [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the continuum email address and make it
commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org
- why do we need a dummy repository?
- what value does the scm section provide to inheriters?
- When building
Jochen Wiedmann wrote on Monday, October 16, 2006 12:25 PM:
On 10/16/06, Jörg Schaible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
can you (or anyone else) tell my, why there's a
configuration for the IDEA plugin included, especially
setting JDK to 1.3? Some commons are no longer JDK 1.3 specific ...
Hi Dion,
Dion Gillard wrote on Monday, October 16, 2006 1:40 PM:
I'm -1 on it as it stands, as I have a few problems with the proposed
POM:
- remove [EMAIL PROTECTED] as the continuum email address and make it
commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org
- why do we need a dummy repository?
- what
On 10/16/06, Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm -1 on it as it stands, as I have a few problems with the proposed POM:
Ok, you have just convinced me that it is better to make the next
release of commons-fileupload without waiting for the availability of
the commons-parent POM. :-(
I
On 10/16/06, Jörg Schaible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it was not the IDEA plugin, that attracted my attention, just the JDK
specificaion.
Ok, changed, as I gave up hoping for a successful release.
... and use that parameter also also for the javadoc plugin ;-)
Done.
Jochen
--
My wife
Jochen Wiedmann wrote on Monday, October 16, 2006 2:39 PM:
[snip]
- what value does the scm section provide to inheriters?
None, you are right. I have removed it. But the same holds true for
the issueManagement section. Removed as well.
You need it for the POM itself to be reeleased! It
On 10/16/06, Jochen Wiedmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/16/06, Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm -1 on it as it stands, as I have a few problems with the proposed POM:
Ok, you have just convinced me that it is better to make the next
release of commons-fileupload without waiting
On 10/16/06, Jörg Schaible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
None, you are right. I have removed it. But the same holds true for
the issueManagement section. Removed as well.
You need it for the POM itself to be reeleased! It has an own release cycle!
Understood. I have reenabled the section again
On 10/16/06, Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, that makes sense. An updated comment about what switches are
needed from the command like to override it would work for me.
I have added the hint on how to use the profiles.
That makes my vote a +0 now you've clarified that for me.
On 10/17/06, Jochen Wiedmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/16/06, Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, that makes sense. An updated comment about what switches are
needed from the command like to override it would work for me.
I have added the hint on how to use the profiles.
That
On 10/16/06, Jochen Wiedmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/16/06, Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm -1 on it as it stands, as I have a few problems with the proposed POM:
Ok, you have just convinced me that it is better to make the next
release of commons-fileupload without waiting
Hi Jochen,
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On 10/16/06, Jörg Schaible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
None, you are right. I have removed it. But the same holds true for
the issueManagement section. Removed as well.
You need it for the POM itself to be reeleased! It has an own release
cycle!
Why is this (see email subject) called commons-proper POM?
One related comment inlined below --
On 10/12/06, Jochen Wiedmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
as already discussed on
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11601226581
I would like to see a release of the parent POM for the
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On 10/16/06, Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
- Is it possible to get the m2 bug fixed which forces us to use a
whole slew of ant xml to copy over various resources?
Any hope of getting these answered?
1.) It isn't clear that the point is even considered a
Jörg Schaible wrote:
Jochen Wiedmann wrote on Monday, October 16, 2006 12:25 PM:
On 10/16/06, Jörg Schaible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
can you (or anyone else) tell my, why there's a
configuration for the IDEA plugin included, especially
setting JDK to 1.3? Some commons are no longer JDK 1.3
Hi,
as already discussed on
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11601226581
I would like to see a release of the parent POM for the Jakarta Commons
Proper projects. The current version 1-SNAPSHOT can be found on
Can you summarise in a paragraph why we need a publicly published POM
for those of us maven luddites who haven't followed the discussion, so
we know what is being voted on and why?
thanks
Stephen
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
Hi,
as already discussed on
On 10/12/06, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you summarise in a paragraph why we need a publicly published POM
for those of us maven luddites who haven't followed the discussion, so
we know what is being voted on and why?
Think of the POM as a project configuration, it's a
I'd like to remove the issueManagement section. It does not provide
anything useful to the project that inherits from the parent pom. The
project still has to define this for itself.
Other than that I'm +1
--
Dennis Lundberg
Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
Hi,
as already discussed on
On 10/12/06, Dennis Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to remove the issueManagement section. It does not provide
anything useful to the project that inherits from the parent pom. The
project still has to define this for itself.
Other than that I'm +1
I agree with you, but for in
27 matches
Mail list logo
