Hi all guys, package move has been done, I took advantage to update a small subset of metadata on parent pom, according to new apache info. Once terminated, I also reported the BVAL-11 issue that I wasn't able to fix alone, as Kevan suggested I committed the code so the community can help to resolve the issue. One small question: is (agimatec) 0.9.6 version still fine for bval? I'd propose to change it to 0.1-SNAPSHOT, how does it sound to you? Best regards, have a nice Sunday!!! Sim
http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Simone Tripodi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Donald, > I 100% support your idea, I'd raise the same question once terminated > this task :) > Thanks for your hint, going to commit in a while!!! :) > Have a nice Sunday, > Simo > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > > > > On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Donald Woods <[email protected]> wrote: >> I was thinking about collapsing everything into one artifact. The >> current code structure is because agimatec-validation contains the core >> engine/metadata handler, which was shared with pre-JSR303 code that >> Agimatec had, while the agimatec-jsr303 was the add-on layer to fulfill >> the spec requirements. >> >> For now, lets rename the artifacts as: >> agimatec-validation --> bval-core >> agimatec-jsr303 --> bval-jsr303 >> >> We'll use another JIRA to combine everything or BVAL-1 to split things >> into an impl and api jar..... >> >> I'll try to take a look at the test failures tonight or tomorrow, but go >> ahead with the commit and we'll figure it out from there. >> >> >> Thanks, >> Donald >> >> >> On 3/27/10 1:14 PM, Simone Tripodi wrote: >>> Hi Kevan, >>> thank you very much for your feedbacks!!! I'm going to commit the code >>> at this status, I just need to know: if org.apache.bval fits well in >>> groupId, which artifacts Id do we have to use? Do you have any >>> suggestion? >>> Thanks a lot!!! >>> Simo >>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Kevan Miller <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mar 27, 2010, at 8:51 AM, Simone Tripodi wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all mates, >>>>> I'm going to complete the issue but I need you help for 2 small issues I >>>>> have: >>>>> >>>>> 1) should I move also groupId and artifactId in poms? >>>> >>>> Yes, I definitely think so. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2) in the jsr-303 module I've 28 failures over 81 tests, I attached on >>>>> this email the .txt junit reports, is anyone able to explain me why >>>>> they fail so I can fix them? >>>> >>>> Sorry, I really haven't looked at the code at all, yet... IMO, it's >>>> absolutely fine for you to commit the code in it's current form. At this >>>> stage, I don't think anyone would object that the code has test failures. >>>> Plus committing will allow others to help out... No reason for this to be >>>> solely on your shoulders. >>>> >>>> Thanks for doing this! >>>> >>>> --kevan >>> >> >
