On 24-Aug-08, at 10:10 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
Sorry, but I still don't really get why you think a line of
development that is some time away from an alpha release needs to
worry more about the stability of a component that is already in
place for a point release. You could use beta-2, but I don't see the
point in that either.
I'm actually more worried about 2.0.x.
Only 2 things have cropped up in beta-3, and they've both been fixed
(WAGON-224, WAGON-225). There was one more that predated my changes,
also fixed in trunk and easily worked around in Maven (WAGON-237).
Sure, it would probably have been better to rename 1.0-beta-2 as 1.0
and release Wagon beta-3 as 1.1-beta-1. Hindsight is great. But
plenty of time was left for discussion, enough people voted for the
release, and I stand by it. Re-releasing something old as 1.0 when
the others are out would just be even more confusing. I don't really
get what you are trying to achieve that you can't do already.
- Brett
On 25/08/2008, at 1:23 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I don't have a specific problem other then the few things that have
cropped up, but the vast majority of people have not tried the new
wagon and you honestly have no idea what's going to happen. I would
just rather be safe then repentant.
I not to worried about fiddling versions, I just want to patch fix
what was used for the last release myself. It's generally the case
that we have problems when we do this.
I personally don't think it's for "no good reason": I want to do
what we just decided to do with Maven itself. With Wagon we should
have just cut the release and moved on.
On 24-Aug-08, at 7:43 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
Do you have an actual problem you are trying to fix? If you don't
want to go hunting and need help, just ask. There's no point
fiddling versions and creating more confusion for no reason.
Seriously, Wagon should be the least of your concerns in trying to
stabilise things there. How about telling us what you are trying
to achieve or the problems you're having instead? A month ago you
were stabilising, a couple of weeks ago you were intent on
rewriting significant parts, now you're stabilising for release
again. Instead of being able to dig in and help out, we're wasting
time trying to figure out what to call things.
Cheers,
Brett
On 25/08/2008, at 11:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're going
with 2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a beta and I
don't really want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1 release.
That is significant:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=10335&fixfor=12544
If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I
could live with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be
happening to the 2.0.9 folks using beta-2.
I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0-
beta-3 for Wagon 1.1.x.
I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and
let 2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x.
On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
proxies don't work properly in beta-4.
Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug?
Proxies weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo
and there wasn't a test case, not because of the significance of
changes. That got fixed in beta-4.
John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234
), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing?
- Brett
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
A party which is not afraid of letting culture,
business, and welfare go to ruin completely can
be omnipotent for a while.
-- Jakob Burckhardt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good
people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people.
-- Paul Graham
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks,
Jason
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
jason at sonatype dot com
----------------------------------------------------------
the course of true love never did run smooth ...
-- Shakespeare
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
