On Saturday, 4 January 2014, Jason van Zyl wrote:
On Jan 4, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Stephen Connolly
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote:
Doing so would make the next version 4.0 and not 3.2
I don't mind if we want to do that, but we were supposed to be pushing a
3.2 out at
As i mentioned in referenced thread, i would really like to see maven at
java7.
We talk about release to happen in near future, that would be used in a bit
further future by users, but even _today_ there is no other java than 7
that is not eol-d. For those locked in, there are still 3.0, 3.1
I missed jvz's question: yes for removal of deprecations eagerly. If
anything, we should start doing that eagerly (4 years?), and declare this
step as transitioning one toward 4.0?
thanks,
~t~ (mobile)
On Jan 5, 2014 11:29 AM, Tamás Cservenák ta...@cservenak.net wrote:
As i mentioned in
My PoV is that once Java 8 is released we drop support for running on Java
6 (keep support for compiling with a Java 6 JDK via toolchains)
We should be one and one back with regards to the runtime JVM maven
requires.
But to get there I'd like to see a JDK 6 min release first, gauge how the
I guess my question is, why have we still not cut 3.2... If the answer is
just nobody has bothered, then I'd be happy to give a spin through it... If
the answer is bugs needing a fixing then let's get those out of the way and
spin that release already... Then we can have a clear run at 4.0 with
+1
On 4 January 2014 07:42, Tony Chemit che...@codelutin.com wrote:
Hi,
Shame on me, I copy-paste a code and add a typo just after it :(.
Maven shared JarSigner 1.3.1
The version 1.3.1 just fix an important bug while unsigning jar (ok it was
exactly the goal
I think we should remove any deprecations that do not break trunk of
maven-plugins and mojo-trunk, and call it 3.2; at least do this as an
initial move. Then we can determine the scope of /use/ of deprecations.
I am very skeptical to removing stuff wholesale just because we
deprecated it 4 years
On Jan 5, 2014, at 6:27 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com
wrote:
I guess my question is, why have we still not cut 3.2... If the answer is
just nobody has bothered, then I'd be happy to give a spin through it...
Release it why? Simply because of 1.6? I don't think that's a
In general for deprecated code that's in the year or so old range I think that
strategy is fine. We just haven't been very good removing stuff.
In the case of this code it's had the deprecated warning for a long time and if
it's removed and it breaks code then that code needs to change IMO. If
I just see little point in pissing off users with extensive breakage if we
have simple means of assessing the consequences before we do it.
Deprecations come in all sorts, some turn out to be like the new style
configuration for the site plugin; where exposure to the wild revealed that
the old
On Jan 5, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Kristian Rosenvold kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com
wrote:
I just see little point in pissing off users with extensive breakage if we
have simple means of assessing the consequences before we do it.
I'm not disagreeing with you about running what we have and knowing
I updated unit tests to avoid future regressions
+1
Regards,
Hervé
Le vendredi 3 janvier 2014 21:42:14 Tony Chemit a écrit :
Hi,
Shame on me, I copy-paste a code and add a typo just after it :(.
Maven shared JarSigner 1.3.1
The version 1.3.1 just fix an
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Tutorial%3A+Maven+in+60+seconds
Still think that it is overly vague.
It would be easier to understand if the passive voice was eliminated.
Makes it clearer to understand what the developer has to do and what
maven is going to do while
It might be clearer to annotate the diagram, rather than have a
separate key table.
On 3 January 2014 14:41, Stephen Connolly
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
Just in case it wasn't clear... I'm looking for comments and feedback
On 3 January 2014 14:35, Stephen Connolly
Okay, so I bit the bullet and tried it. I based my examples on a
Creative Commons image, but it should be fine as long as it is
attributed. http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_scott/4463167753/sizes/l/
http://static.adamretter.org.uk/maven-logo-example1.png
and
I would love to, but I posses absolutely zero artistic skill.
On 2 January 2014 16:28, Stephen Connolly
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
how about you try sketching out what you mean!
On 2 January 2014 16:18, Adam Retter adam.ret...@googlemail.com wrote:
I like that one best
I like that one best personally. How about something like the Albanian
coat of arms?
On 2 January 2014 15:11, Stephen Connolly
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
http://people.apache.org/~stephenc/maven-logo-contest/maven-15.png
On 2 January 2014 14:52, Lyons, Roy roy.ly...@cmegroup.com
I think that the associations of a raven are too dark also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBmExt184vc
The moose and beaver are also laden.
Maybe this is why Maven has been logo free for so long?
Feels really weird to add a logo to a 13? year old project.
cheers
Timp
On 2 January 2014 15:48,
On Jan 2, 2014, at 11:18 AM, Tim Pizey t...@paneris.org wrote:
I think that the associations of a raven are too dark also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBmExt184vc
The moose and beaver are also laden.
Maybe this is why Maven has been logo free for so long?
Feels really weird to add a
19 matches
Mail list logo
