Le dimanche 10 décembre 2017, 19:26:53 CET Robert Scholte a écrit :
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 18:38:55 +0100, Stephen Connolly
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun 10 Dec 2017 at 17:12, Robert Scholte <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 17:46:10 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY
>> <[email protected]>
>>
>> wrote:
>> > Le dimanche 10 décembre 2017, 11:06:32 CET Robert Scholte a écrit :
>> >> I still think it is ugly to use the HR for this kind of info.
>> >> If you *really* want this info, I'd prefer a new line, offering
more
>> >> space
>> >> for additional info.
>> >
>> > yes, I *really* want this info: the precise details on how to
display
>>
>> it
>>
>> > is
>> > less important
>> >
>> >> Other option is to leave it as it is. If developers want it, they
can
>> >> put
>> >> it in the name.
>> >
>> > the idea is that ${project.packaging} drives the default build,
before
>> > additional plugins bindings: it's useful to display it as it is a
key
>> > info
>> >
>> >> So -1 for me.
>> >
>> > how do you want to proceed to choose the best display?
>>
>> Is it acceptable to add it to the "Reactor Build Order"? It has
enough
>> space for this kind of information.
>
> I’d like it in both places. ;-)
+1
if we have info only on "Reactor Build Order", I see one missing case:
when
it's a simple module build, without reactor
Seems like I'm one of the few who doesn't understand what this info
adds.
If it says pom, it'll run *at least* the m-install-p and m-deploy-p.
If I only see the m-install-p and m-deploy-p being executed, it must be
a
pom.
In general I can see by the name what will happen.
If we're discussing module "header" information:
What I am missing is a timestamp when the module started.
Reason: in case of a long build I would like to be able to estimate if
the
build is still active or hanging.
on this requirement, I'd more add some timer "since the last log" than a
timestamp on each line
Also in some cases I would like to see GAV instead of the name, because
that can help investigating in case of a multimodule project when there
are issues with some dependency (=GAV).
dependency between modules in the reactor? I don't really understand
But for this, we already have "@ artifactId" on each goal start, and
version
in the "Building" message: groupId, for the reactor, I don't see the need
So there's enough to think of to fill an extra row ;)
sorry, I don't think we'll fill a row with really useful additional info
any other opinion?
Regards,
Hervé
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Hervé
>> >
>> >> Robert
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 11:01:41 +0100, Hervé BOUTEMY
>> >> <[email protected]>
>> >>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > is there a seconder for this enhancement?
>>
>> >> > CI:
>>
https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/job/maven-3.x-jenkinsfile/
>>
>> >> > job/MNG-6308_display_packaging/
>> >> >
>> >> > Jira issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6308
>> >> >
>> >> > Regards,
>> >> >
>> >> > Hervé
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>> >>
>> >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>> >
>> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>> --
>
> Sent from my phone
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
