Re: Infra question: One commit -> multiple issues.

Yes, every branch that has the Jenkinsfile will automatically get its own branch job build within 15 minutes of being pushed. (It would be faster - i.e. 5s after the push - but until I don't want to pester infra to upgrade Jenkins until I have got some stability in the branch-api 2.0.x series)

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

Am 01/10/17 um 00:40 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > It seems you are modifying an existing test: > https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/blob/8852538208e508fdc7b58d6332ca683bfc0c9373/core-it-support/core-it-plugins/mng5805-extension/src/main/resources/META-INF/plexus/components.xml > >

[GitHub] maven-wagon pull request #32: [WAGON-485] ScpWagon file size Integer to Long

Github user michael-o commented on a diff in the pull request: https://github.com/apache/maven-wagon/pull/32#discussion_r95234762 --- Diff: wagon-providers/wagon-ssh/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/wagon/providers/ssh/jsch/ScpWagon.java --- @@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ public void

[GitHub] maven-wagon issue #32: [WAGON-485] ScpWagon file size Integer to Long

Github user stephenc commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/maven-wagon/pull/32 LGTM --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the

[GitHub] maven-wagon pull request #32: [WAGON-485] ScpWagon file size Integer to Long

Github user asfgit closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/maven-wagon/pull/32 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is

[IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

Commit to review is here: If no one objects until Friday, 13th, 2017, I'll merge it to master. Regards, -- Christian

Re: Infra question: One commit -> multiple issues.

Am 01/09/17 um 23:36 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > Yes, every branch that has the Jenkinsfile will automatically get its own > branch job build within 15 minutes of being pushed. > > (It would be faster - i.e. 5s after the push - but until I don't want to > pester infra to upgrade Jenkins until I

Re: [DISCUSS] Stop allowing forced pushes to GIT repositories.

Am 01/09/17 um 12:23 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > And INFRA have applied the protections to the master branches of all our > Git repos Thanks. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands,

Re: Infra question: One commit -> multiple issues.

Yes. And the branch job will be deleted automatically after you delete the branch (we can set an orphaned item strategy if we want to keep them around for a while) On Mon 9 Jan 2017 at 22:44, Christian Schulte wrote: > Am 01/09/17 um 23:36 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > > > Yes,

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

It seems you are modifying an existing test: https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/blob/8852538208e508fdc7b58d6332ca683bfc0c9373/core-it-support/core-it-plugins/mng5805-extension/src/main/resources/META-INF/plexus/components.xml Integration tests should be append-only (with rare

[GitHub] maven-wagon issue #32: [WAGON-485] ScpWagon file size Integer to Long

Github user oassuncao commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/maven-wagon/pull/32 Changed the code to use `Long.parseLong` --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this

[GitHub] maven-wagon issue #32: [WAGON-485] ScpWagon file size Integer to Long

Github user michael-o commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/maven-wagon/pull/32 Please squash them. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and

Re: Infra question: One commit -> multiple issues.

Can we stage this logical set of changes on the same branch before merging to master (so we know we have a clean test run on the https://builds.apache.org/job/maven-jenkinsfile/ branch build) On Mon 9 Jan 2017 at 21:41, Christian Schulte wrote: > Am 01/09/17 um 21:03 schrieb

Re: Infra question: One commit -> multiple issues.

Am 01/09/17 um 21:03 schrieb Michael Osipov: > Am 2017-01-09 um 19:58 schrieb Stephen Connolly: >> If the commit mentions all the issues, e.g. [MNG-1235, MNG-4568] there >> should be reasonable tracking... but if you feel more confident with one >> issue per commit I see no issue with that either

[GitHub] maven-wagon pull request #32: [WAGON-485] ScpWagon file size Integer to Long

Github user Tunaki commented on a diff in the pull request: https://github.com/apache/maven-wagon/pull/32#discussion_r95232415 --- Diff: wagon-providers/wagon-ssh/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/wagon/providers/ssh/jsch/ScpWagon.java --- @@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ public void

[GitHub] maven-wagon issue #32: [WAGON-485] ScpWagon file size Integer to Long

Github user oassuncao commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/maven-wagon/pull/32 I squash the commits. Thanks --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature

Re: Infra question: One commit -> multiple issues.

Am 01/09/17 um 22:44 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > Can we stage this logical set of changes on the same branch before merging > to master (so we know we have a clean test run on the > https://builds.apache.org/job/maven-jenkinsfile/ branch build) What's this Jenkinsfile about? Does it mean whenever

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

Hi, forgot to add those email addresses in the CC. Sending it again with the authors in the CC. Am 01/10/17 um 00:59 schrieb Christian Schulte: > Am 01/10/17 um 00:40 schrieb Stephen Connolly: >> It seems you are modifying an existing test: >>

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

Looks about right. Stephen, the change to MNG-5805 test as part of MNG-5958 was intentional, since I broke binary compat in the initial implementation of the feature. The changed test should also work with 3.3.9 which supported both 'phases' and 'lifecyclePhases' for the extended config, while

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

So 5805 should be marked as only for [3.3.9] and then copy it for the rephrased version On Tue 10 Jan 2017 at 06:17, Anton Tanasenko wrote: > Looks about right. > > > > Stephen, the change to MNG-5805 test as part of MNG-5958 was intentional, > > since I broke binary

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

I'll rephrase. That test is currently passing on 3.3.9. Why? If that testing passing on 3.3.9 because 3.3.9 was (badly) designed to work that way? If yes then the test stays, change the range to [3.3.9,3.5.0) and duplicate the test with the duplicate having the change and the range being

Re: Infra question: One commit -> multiple issues.

If you did all the commits, then that is fine. If you are effectively squashing the work of others, you'll probably need to at least retain their commits with the authorship On 9 January 2017 at 15:13, Christian Schulte wrote: > Hi, > > there have been various issues in JIRA

Re: Infra question: One commit -> multiple issues.

Am 01/09/17 um 16:13 schrieb Christian Schulte: > Hi, > > there have been various issues in JIRA regarding the launcher scripts. > Is it possible to squash all those commits into one and then mention all > JIRA issues in the commit message so that the commit is added to each > JIRA issue? Last

Infra question: One commit -> multiple issues.

Hi, there have been various issues in JIRA regarding the launcher scripts. Is it possible to squash all those commits into one and then mention all JIRA issues in the commit message so that the commit is added to each JIRA issue? Last time I did this I think Jenkins was able to add comments to

Moving forward on 3.5.0

OK, I have updated the versions in JIRA. Issues which have been agreed in the Big Scrub thread as being accepted for 3.5.0 are all now marked with FixVersion = 3.5.0 Issues which have been proposed for 3.5.0 but have not yet been agreed for 3.5.0 are now all marked with FixVersion =

Re: [DISCUSS] Stop allowing forced pushes to GIT repositories.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/agent/INFRA/issue/INFRA-13288 filed On 8 January 2017 at 22:55, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > Master is supposed to be set up that way by infra... if some repositories > are not set up that way we should just get infra to

[RESULT] [VOTE] Reset Maven Core, Integration Tests and Resolver repository master branches

On 4 January 2017 at 12:16, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > We have collectively managed to mess up our ability to follow the original > release plan for 3.4.0 which was originally supposed to consist of an > effective no-op change of Eclipse's Aether for the

Maven 3.4.0 dropped

After some discussion and debate, the Maven developers have agreed [1] to replan the next release of Maven. The original plans for Maven 3.4.0 were that it should consist of effectively a no-op drop in replacement of Eclipse's Aether project (which has been retired at the Eclipse Foundation) for

Re: [DISCUSS] Stop allowing forced pushes to GIT repositories.

And INFRA have applied the protections to the master branches of all our Git repos On 9 January 2017 at 11:03, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/servicedesk/agent/INFRA/issue/INFRA-13288 > filed > > On 8 January 2017 at 22:55, Stephen

[GitHub] maven-wagon pull request #32: ScpWagon file size Integer to Long

GitHub user oassuncao opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/maven-wagon/pull/32 ScpWagon file size Integer to Long Change filesize to Long as `resource.setContentLength` You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull

Re: Maven 3.4.0 dropped

Note that by going from 3.3.9 to 3.5.0, this will add to the confusion from the user's POV. Gary On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > After some discussion and debate, the Maven developers have agreed [1] to > replan the next release of Maven. > > The

[GitHub] maven-site pull request #6: Enumerate inherited POM elements more thoroughly

Github user ctrueden closed the pull request at: https://github.com/apache/maven-site/pull/6 --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is

Re: Infra question: One commit -> multiple issues.

I suggest one of you creates a branch and you flatten each of your sequential commits into that branch one at a time. The person to create the branch should be the first commit and then proceed in order. Or if you all agree then one of you can just create a branch with the final end game

[GitHub] maven-wagon issue #32: ScpWagon file size Integer to Long

Github user michael-o commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/maven-wagon/pull/32 Is the value in bytes? If though, this truly can fail with intergers. Please open a JIRA issue for that. --- If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your reply

Re: Infra question: One commit -> multiple issues.

Am 2017-01-09 um 16:13 schrieb Christian Schulte: Hi, there have been various issues in JIRA regarding the launcher scripts. Is it possible to squash all those commits into one and then mention all JIRA issues in the commit message so that the commit is added to each JIRA issue? Last time I did

Re: [VOTE] Reset Maven Core, Integration Tests and Resolver repository master branches

> I like this idea of avoiding force pushing, but I'm not git expert to know > exactly if this gives exactly the intended result = start clean and not > have noise when doing bisects or git blame It's clean for our own repo but might probably screw up cloned repos as they cannot just git-pull

[GitHub] maven-wagon issue #32: ScpWagon file size Integer to Long

Github user oassuncao commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/maven-wagon/pull/32 If you check the `resource.setContentLength` this method receive a long value as a parameter. In the `ScpWagon` convert the integer to long (java cast). I only parse the value to

Re: Infra question: One commit -> multiple issues.

If the commit mentions all the issues, e.g. [MNG-1235, MNG-4568] there should be reasonable tracking... but if you feel more confident with one issue per commit I see no issue with that either On Mon 9 Jan 2017 at 18:51, Michael Osipov wrote: > Am 2017-01-09 um 16:13

Re: Maven 3.4.0 dropped

If you are a user who tried one of the 3.4.0-SNAPSHOT builds... and then you see *no* 3.4.x at all but instead a 3.5.0 Or you see a 3.4.0 Which is more likely to make you go and read the release notes which will explain what happened? The considered option of those I asked were in favour of

Re: Infra question: One commit -> multiple issues.

Am 2017-01-09 um 19:58 schrieb Stephen Connolly: If the commit mentions all the issues, e.g. [MNG-1235, MNG-4568] there should be reasonable tracking... but if you feel more confident with one issue per commit I see no issue with that either Personally, yes. I have seen comments from users on