2009/9/8 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> > Would it be possible to release the plugin asap ? > I'd really like to push a gogo release this week. > Else, I can revert to version 1.4.3 of the maven bundle plugin. >
I saw you decided to go with 1.4.3 in the end... but I'll try to prepare a release of the plugin today anyway > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 15:25, Stuart McCulloch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 2009/9/2 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> > > > > > The latest bnd version is now available in central: > > > http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/biz/aQute/bndlib/0.0.357/ > > > > > > > excellent, thanks > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:03, Stuart McCulloch <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > 2009/9/2 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > Why is there a need to wait for bnd to be in central given that the > > > > source > > > > > code is included in the bundle plugin project ? > > > > > Is that just temporary ? > > > > > > > > > > > > yes - Peter has his own Maven repo for Bnd, but unfortunately this is > > not > > > > sync'd to central > > > > (I've suggested he sets up sync'ing a number of times, but this is > not > > > high > > > > on his todo list) > > > > > > > > we don't use Peter's repository in the bundleplugin pom.xml because > > it's > > > > not > > > > good practice > > > > (the additional repository would then get hit for all maven > artifacts, > > > not > > > > just the bnd groupId) > > > > > > > > previously I've got Carlos to upload the artifact manually, but this > > gets > > > > very tiresome during > > > > development which is why I decided to just put a copy of the source > > there > > > > at > > > > the moment > > > > > > > > if we released the plugin with this source then you wouldn't be able > to > > > > override the bnd > > > > version during the build (because there's no dependency) and it makes > > > > things > > > > messy > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also did anyone asked for the new version to be > > > > > put in central already ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was just about to - there's been a few regressions in the recent > > > builds, > > > > but Peter has > > > > just blessed 0.0.356 as a good build. Bear in mind that a manual > upload > > > to > > > > central can > > > > take a while, depending who's available to do the upload (which is > why > > > sync > > > > is better). > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:36, Stuart McCulloch <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 2009/9/2 Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've tried to release gogo this morning and after fixing a few > > > > things, > > > > > > i've > > > > > > > badly hit FELIX-1262 which is actually fixed in the latest > > snapshot > > > > of > > > > > > the > > > > > > > maven bundle plugin. > > > > > > > Is this plugin in a state to be released now ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no it's not in a state to be released - for one we want to move > to > > > the > > > > > > latest bndlib (and first we need that available on central) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can try to release it unless somebody is willing to do it. > > What > > > > > would > > > > > > be > > > > > > > the version to use ? 2.0.1, 2.0.2 ? Not sure to have a good > > > > > > understanding > > > > > > > of the version scheme with odd/even numbers for minor releases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 08:25, Guillaume Nodet < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to release a first version of Gogo. > > > > > > > > However, given the RFC is bound to change and that we might > > > > introduce > > > > > > > > other changes that will break the syntax, I wonder if we > should > > > use > > > > a > > > > > > > > 0.2.0 version instead of 1.0.0. > > > > > > > > In addition, we will release the org.osgi.service.command > > package > > > > > > > > which is not official, so I think keeping a version < 1.0.0 > > makes > > > > > > > > sense until a spec is released for that. > > > > > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Guillaume Nodet > > > > > > > > ------------------------ > > > > > > > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > ------------------------ > > > > > > > > Open Source SOA > > > > > > > > http://fusesource.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > Guillaume Nodet > > > > > > > ------------------------ > > > > > > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > ------------------------ > > > > > > > Open Source SOA > > > > > > > http://fusesource.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Cheers, Stuart > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Guillaume Nodet > > > > > ------------------------ > > > > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > > > > > ------------------------ > > > > > Open Source SOA > > > > > http://fusesource.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Cheers, Stuart > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Cheers, > > > Guillaume Nodet > > > ------------------------ > > > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > > > ------------------------ > > > Open Source SOA > > > http://fusesource.com > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Cheers, Stuart > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > ------------------------ > Open Source SOA > http://fusesource.com > -- Cheers, Stuart
