On 25 May 2011 10:04, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
These were Nicolas' tests, but a good catch and I've made the change.
BTW, the aim here is to reproduce the bugs for the first go... so if
Plexus Utils is incorrectly using platform encoding then actually the
test
On 26 May 2011 12:57, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 May 2011 10:04, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com
wrote:
These were Nicolas' tests, but a good catch and I've made the change.
BTW, the aim here is to reproduce the bugs for the first go... so if
Plexus Utils is
The access control on codehaus jira is quite restrictive. In
particular, issue authors aren't permitted to 'edit'. Which means,
that if you create an issue, and *later* attach a patch, you can't set
the 'patch' bit.
Now, if there is ever a 'long march' of jiras from codehaus to asf for
maven,
The only way I can consider of testing this reliably is to keep the test
code using platform encoding and have two executions of surefire, the first
leaving things as is and the second with file.encoding set to a different
value.
For http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SUREFIRE-740 I had to use
may or may not be done
On 26 May 2011 15:22, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
The access control on codehaus jira is quite restrictive. In
particular, issue authors aren't permitted to 'edit'. Which means,
that if you create an issue, and *later* attach a patch, you can't set
I don't remember which level of admin I have on this instance but if we want to
allow to edit this field I think we need to edit the edition view. There is no
fine grained security settings for jira fields edition. Thus it is for all
people who can edit the issue or nobody.
Le 26 mai 2011 à
On 26 May 2011 15:03, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 May 2011 12:57, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 May 2011 10:04, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com
wrote:
These were Nicolas' tests, but a good catch and I've made the change.
BTW, the
The patch bit should be done away with. It would be much better to just have
a statement that says everything contributed is under the Apache license
with a link to the license.
2011/5/26 Arnaud Héritier aherit...@gmail.com
I don't remember which level of admin I have on this instance but if we
Rats - I should have looked at Jira before posting. I was thinking this was
the checkbox to accept the license.
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:23 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
The patch bit should be done away with. It would be much better to just
have a
I think this is just supposed to be a mechanism to attract committer
attention. I think it's silly: at CXF, we just use 'any attachments?'
for that purpose. I only wanted to set the bit in case someone was
really watching.
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:29 PM, ralph.goers @dslextreme.com
On 27/05/2011, at 9:01 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
I think this is just supposed to be a mechanism to attract committer
attention. I think it's silly: at CXF, we just use 'any attachments?'
for that purpose. I only wanted to set the bit in case someone was
really watching.
The problem is
Hmm. We get email at CXF from a query that queries for attachments.
Apparently the ASF version has acquired this trick.
Issue Subscription
Filter: Design Best Practices (24 issues)
Subscriber: mavendevlist
Key Summary
MNG-2184Possible problem with @aggregator and forked lifecycles
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-2184
MNG-612 implement conflict resolution techniques
13 matches
Mail list logo
