I added maven/plugins/trunk/pom.xml to Continuum 1.1 and forced a
build of the maven-plugins parent pom. (This is my own instance, not
vmbuild or the maven zone.)
It's using the default --non-recursive build definition, so I don't
understand this error:
INFO | jvm 1| 2008/03/09 09:55:55 |
Even though it uses --non-recursive to build, the checkout does not
exclude any subdirectories. This would occur in the checkout/update
and building changesets.
On 10/03/2008, at 4:08 AM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
I added maven/plugins/trunk/pom.xml to Continuum 1.1 and forced a
build of the
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even though it uses --non-recursive to build, the checkout does not
exclude any subdirectories. This would occur in the checkout/update
and building changesets.
Is a build error and Please correct your data! the right
I think Continuum needs to allow longer values in here - it certainly
should not error out.
On 10/03/2008, at 7:13 AM, Wendy Smoak wrote:
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Even though it uses --non-recursive to build, the checkout does not
exclude any
Hi,
Currently the max size for this field is 512.
class
nameChangeFile/name
packageNameorg.apache.maven.continuum.model.scm/packageName
version1.0.9+/version
fields
field
name stash.maxSize=512name/name
version1.0.9+/version
512 should be - the error Wendy got was going over 255.
On 10/03/2008, at 9:08 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Hi,
Currently the max size for this field is 512.
class
nameChangeFile/name
packageNameorg.apache.maven.continuum.model.scm/packageName
version1.0.9+/version
Hi,
If I can help I will (propably not a 24/7 support :-) ).
2008/3/8, Wendy Smoak [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We have a Continuum instance available for ASF projects to use:
http://vmbuild.apache.org/continuum/groupSummary.action
This is our (internal) public face, and it would be great to have
2008/3/4, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 05/03/2008, at 5:18 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
2008/3/4, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 04/03/2008, at 10:47 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
Agree on this.
Currently there is a blocking issue with xml-rpc CONTINUUM-1590
which
There are some other branches residing in Continuum SVN. Should we
remove any (or all) of the following if they are not in active
development? I know (id-refactor and key-based-refactor can go)
# continuum-acegi
# continuum-site_1.1
# gbuild
# id-refactor
# key-based-refactor
#
