Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

Am 01/01/17 um 08:06 schrieb Christian Schulte: > It's not even needed to change the plugin tools version any more. Only > plugins having declared > > 3.4 > > would get the correct resolution. As of yesterday. Happy new year everyone, BTW.

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

Am 01/01/17 um 08:18 schrieb Christian Schulte: > Once more I asked someone to test a snapshot and provided a link to > Jenkins. That's where all those commits come from. I hope I'll get > feedback on this one and that could again lead to commits. Doing this on > a release branch - yes - I got

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

Am 01/01/17 um 07:52 schrieb Christian Schulte: > Number of fixes to plugin POMs was lower than 10 commits. During all of > this quite a few other bugs have been identified in the core, the ITs, > the plugins, the plugin ITs, etc. Last issue I created in JIRA due to this is:

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

Am 01/01/17 um 08:06 schrieb Christian Schulte: > Am 01/01/17 um 07:52 schrieb Christian Schulte: >> is uncovering bugs in the poms. Current master is passing all core ITs, >> all plugin ITs and also can be used to build all plugins, if you >> manually change to a different plugin tools release >>

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

Am 01/01/17 um 07:52 schrieb Christian Schulte: > is uncovering bugs in the poms. Current master is passing all core ITs, > all plugin ITs and also can be used to build all plugins, if you > manually change to a different plugin tools release > (-DmavenPluginToolsVersion=3.3 or 3.5). It's not

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

Am 12/31/16 um 12:13 schrieb Guillaume Boué: > > Having a vote on all changes to master sounds too much. I think it > should be up to the developers to always raise discussions whenever a > change would have impacts on existing ITs, or whenever a new feature is > considered to be added. Bug

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

Am 12/31/16 um 17:36 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: > looks like 1.1.0 was released without tagging the repo: no tag even in > Eclipse > git [1]. I hope it is a state that is in git, even without tag: if someone > can > define the git hash, it would be useful to add a tag, just for reference > > I

Re: [DISCUSS] Big Scrub for proposed 3.5.0 (if we reset master)

What I marked FIX-3.6.0 could also be marked FIX-4.0.0. I cannot tell. I would have made it part of 3.4.0 so better someone else decides that. Am 01/01/17 um 05:42 schrieb Christian Schulte: > Am 12/31/16 um 21:10 schrieb Stephen Connolly: >> Here are the changes in current master since 3.3.9

Re: [DISCUSS] Big Scrub for proposed 3.5.0 (if we reset master)

I think it would be easier if we just update the JIRA issues and set the version the issue will be shipped in. We already have a 3.5.0 version available. That will be the next Maven release? So we would need a 3.6.0 version and a 4.0.0 version and a 5.0.0 version. Let 4.0.0 be the next major

Re: [DISCUSS] Big Scrub for proposed 3.5.0 (if we reset master)

Am 12/31/16 um 21:10 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > Here are the changes in current master since 3.3.9 (with some minor changes > omitted) > > Issue ID Target Version Summary > == > MNG-1577 WONTFIX

Re: [DISCUSS] Big Scrub for proposed 3.5.0 (if we reset master)

Am 12/31/16 um 22:14 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > FIX-3.5.0: MNG-5607, MNG-5815, MNG-5823, MNG-5824, MNG-5836, MNG-5837, > MNG-5889, MNG-5904, MNG-5946, MNG-5963, MNG-5967, MNG-5968, MNG-6001, > MNG-6003, MNG-6078 MNG-5968 will require updates to the ITs due to the maven-plugin-plugin no longer

Re: [DISCUSS] Big Scrub for proposed 3.5.0 (if we reset master)

I'd also like to add FIX-3.5.0: MNG-2199 It was working in Maven 3.2.2 but got broken the next release. This went unnoticed because the ITs were not correct. Back then I did not notice that Maven does not fail the build if it cannot resolve a parent but just logs a warning. The ITs did not check

Re: [DISCUSS] Big Scrub for proposed 3.5.0 (if we reset master)

Am 01/01/17 um 01:55 schrieb Michael Osipov: > Undecided: > MNG-5708: fixed by Christian's work Should not be done in that release. Let's ship all bugfixes affecting resolution together - not just one after the other. All or nothing. So nothing.

Re: [DISCUSS] Big Scrub for proposed 3.5.0 (if we reset master)

I would like to add MNG-6084 WONTFIX Support JSR 250 @PreDestory and @PostContruct On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Michael Osipov wrote: > Am 2017-01-01 um 02:11 schrieb Anton Tanasenko: > >> FIX-3.5.0: >> MNG- WONTFIX Add a ProjectArtifactsCache

Re: [DISCUSS] Big Scrub for proposed 3.5.0 (if we reset master)

Am 2017-01-01 um 02:11 schrieb Anton Tanasenko: FIX-3.5.0: MNG- WONTFIX Add a ProjectArtifactsCache similar to PluginArtifactsCache That's actually a https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6025 JIRA adjusted, thank you. Stephen, please update your list with MNG-6025.

Re: [DISCUSS] Big Scrub for proposed 3.5.0 (if we reset master)

FIX-3.5.0: MNG- WONTFIX Add a ProjectArtifactsCache similar to PluginArtifactsCache That's actually a https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6025 2017-01-01 2:55 GMT+02:00 Michael Osipov : > I just went through the list my issues. Here is a safe list I

Re: [DISCUSS] Big Scrub for proposed 3.5.0 (if we reset master)

I just went through the list my issues. Here is a safe list I would merge/cherry-pick into new master: FIX-3.5.0: MNG-5457, MNG-5567, MNG-5579, MNG-5607, MNG-5815, MNG-5954, MNG-5963, MNG-5975, MNG-5977, MNG-6001, MNG-6003, MNG-6029, MNG-6081, MNG-6102, MNG-6106, MNG-6115, MNG-6136, MNG-6137,

Re: [DISCUSS] Big Scrub for proposed 3.5.0 (if we reset master)

We need to figure out what is what. Also when making a proposal please reply to the original message not previous proposals On 31 December 2016 at 22:12, Guillaume Boué wrote: > > Le 31/12/2016 à 22:14, Stephen Connolly a écrit : > >> FIX-3.5.0: MNG-5607, MNG-5815, MNG-5823,

Re: [DISCUSS] Big Scrub for proposed 3.5.0 (if we reset master)

Here is the wiki page to track proposals https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Roadmap+2017 On 31 December 2016 at 21:34, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > Apache Proverb: If it doesn't happen on a mailing list then it is only a > rumour! > > I will keep

Re: [DISCUSS] Big Scrub for proposed 3.5.0 (if we reset master)

Le 31/12/2016 à 22:14, Stephen Connolly a écrit : FIX-3.5.0: MNG-5607, MNG-5815, MNG-5823, MNG-5824, MNG-5836, MNG-5837, MNG-5889, MNG-5904, MNG-5946, MNG-5963, MNG-5967, MNG-5968, MNG-6001, MNG-6003, MNG-6078 I think colourised logging probably should be 3.5.x but I am open to the idea of

Re: [DISCUSS] Big Scrub for proposed 3.5.0 (if we reset master)

Christian, to avoid confusion, could you reply to the original message if you are adding proposals... reply to proposals if you are seconding? On 31 December 2016 at 21:31, Christian Schulte wrote: > Am 31.12.2016 um 22:14 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > > FIX-3.5.0: MNG-5607,

Re: [DISCUSS] Big Scrub for proposed 3.5.0 (if we reset master)

Apache Proverb: If it doesn't happen on a mailing list then it is only a rumour! I will keep track and summarise on cwiki, but we need proposals and seconds on the ML -Stephen On Sat 31 Dec 2016 at 21:26, Michael Osipov wrote: > Am 2016-12-31 um 21:10 schrieb Stephen

Re: [DISCUSS] Big Scrub for proposed 3.5.0 (if we reset master)

Am 31.12.2016 um 22:14 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > FIX-3.5.0: MNG-5607, MNG-5815, MNG-5823, MNG-5824, MNG-5836, MNG-5837, > MNG-5889, MNG-5904, MNG-5946, MNG-5963, MNG-5967, MNG-5968, MNG-6001, > MNG-6003, MNG-6078 > > I think colourised logging probably should be 3.5.x but I am open to the >

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

Am 2016-12-31 um 19:28 schrieb Stephen Connolly: Well I think syncing patch versions is pointless but as consumers outside of Maven are rare it might actually help to keep major.minor aligned... esp if we are doing a reset of resolver (if we have a release of resolver already cut) If we have

Re: [DISCUSS] Big Scrub for proposed 3.5.0 (if we reset master)

Am 2016-12-31 um 21:10 schrieb Stephen Connolly: Here are the changes in current master since 3.3.9 (with some minor changes omitted) Issue ID Target Version Summary == MNG-1577 WONTFIX dependencyManagement

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

I'm not seeing any objections to the general idea. On Tuesday I'll post a draft of the vote proposal to this thread... then if everyone is happy (translation: nobody says "I'm not happy") I'll start the vote on Wednesday 3rd... usual 72h but I'll probably wait for Monday 9th Jan before closing

Re: [DISCUSS] Big Scrub for proposed 3.5.0 (if we reset master)

FIX-3.5.0: MNG-5607, MNG-5815, MNG-5823, MNG-5824, MNG-5836, MNG-5837, MNG-5889, MNG-5904, MNG-5946, MNG-5963, MNG-5967, MNG-5968, MNG-6001, MNG-6003, MNG-6078 I think colourised logging probably should be 3.5.x but I am open to the idea of making it 3.5.0 as it *should* not affect the build

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

I'm hoping that people step forward with suggestions and we build a consensus IMHO 3.5.0 should be absolute minimum content. Just the switch to resolver and *maybe* the bug fixes on the launcher scripts and .mvn folder handling. Aim would be to release 3.5.0 by mid-Jan 3.5.x is less of a rush,

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Wagon 2.11

Thanks for the analysis! Agree with dropping fsutil then; I committed the addition of the logs with it just so that we can have concrete numbers for comparison (the last build indicates there was no permission issues in using it, otherwise it wouldn't have timed out but just failed to find the

[DISCUSS] Big Scrub for proposed 3.5.0 (if we reset master)

Here are the changes in current master since 3.3.9 (with some minor changes omitted) Issue ID Target Version Summary == MNG-1577 WONTFIX dependencyManagement does not work for

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

Well I think syncing patch versions is pointless but as consumers outside of Maven are rare it might actually help to keep major.minor aligned... esp if we are doing a reset of resolver (if we have a release of resolver already cut) If we have not cut a resolver release then I'm fine with

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

It is a separate component, just like wagon. Don't think there's a need to sync those versions. On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 17:48:25 +0100, Stephen Connolly wrote: I think we should also align our resolver release version on 3.5.0 if we do the reset... wdyt?

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

I think we should also align our resolver release version on 3.5.0 if we do the reset... wdyt? On Sat 31 Dec 2016 at 16:37, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > looks like 1.1.0 was released without tagging the repo: no tag even in > Eclipse > > git [1]. I hope it is a state that is in

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

looks like 1.1.0 was released without tagging the repo: no tag even in Eclipse git [1]. I hope it is a state that is in git, even without tag: if someone can define the git hash, it would be useful to add a tag, just for reference I don't know who uses Aether 1.1.0. And why are you saying that

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Wagon 2.11

Am 2016-12-31 um 12:13 schrieb Guillaume Boué: Do you think I can add a dummy log before the creation of the test file (and add the timestamps to the logs of wagon-http), to see how much time it takes on the Windows Server 2012? I'd like to see the breakdown of what takes time on the Jenkins

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

good question. Here are some options: 1. last release used in Maven 3.3.9, ie Aether 1.0.2.v20150114 sha1 8092eaecbd34bd7bf18f49cb8a99bd218fb6e30e [1], that is currently HEAD of 1.0.x branch 2. code imported to Apache, that I tagged as aether-core-import in master sha1

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

With pipeline multibranch we should be able to get the integration test results as a GitHub status pushed back (perhaps even comments on JIRA) Switching to pipeline multibranch should radically improve our CI infrastructure On Sat 31 Dec 2016 at 12:12, Tibor Digana

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

Stephen, Maybe we should add an icon (green/red) of build status on the page [1]. The same should appear on every pull request in GitHub Maven origin/master and branches. WDYT? [1] https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing T On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Stephen Connolly <

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

On Saturday, 31 December 2016, Guillaume Boué wrote: > > > Le 30/12/2016 à 09:01, Robert Scholte a écrit : > >> On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:57:56 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY >> wrote: >> >> perhaps maven-resolver will require same reset >>> >> >> +1 >> >> IMO we

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

Le 30/12/2016 à 09:01, Robert Scholte a écrit : On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 18:57:56 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: perhaps maven-resolver will require same reset +1 IMO we forgot to do a release with the original Aether code with the new GAVs. Robert and we'll need to

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Wagon 2.11

Do you think I can add a dummy log before the creation of the test file (and add the timestamps to the logs of wagon-http), to see how much time it takes on the Windows Server 2012? I'd like to see the breakdown of what takes time on the Jenkins machine, perhaps there is nothing we can do

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

OT: how you can have a release with a majority of the PMC voting -1 1. The reasons for voting -1 must not relate to the responsibility delegated by the board to the PMC with respect to the requirements of a release 2. The majority of votes cast by committers + PMC must be in favour of the

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

You have misunderstood the Apache way, imho Votes are only to *confirm* consensus... and the consensus is of the *community* (ie everyone on the dev list who steps up to comment) When it comes to code changes, committers have a veto and the permission to commit, so no code changes can happen

Re: [DISCUSS] Resetting Master branch to 737de43e392fc15a0ce366db98d70aa18b3f6c03

That is not how Apache works The PMC vote is only required for policy or releases. Outside of that, committer votes are what count. Votes cast always trump votes not cast, and when it comes to commits, -1 is a veto... any -1 on a commit means thou shall not merge ... one should be very careful