I don't believe the existing Its test parallel downloads specifically. -----Original Message----- From: Don Brown [mailto:mr...@twdata.org] Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 10:48 PM To: Maven Developers List Subject: Re: Maven 2.1.0 Plans (a proposal of sorts)
It would be a shame to drop such a useful feature like parallel downloads when it is working perfectly and been used by developers for months with no reports of problems. While more integration tests are always good, the bits of code I modified are covered by existing tests, so to say it has no test coverage is a misnomer. I'd be happy to set aside some time and answer questions or look at writing an additional test or two, as it is probably one of the most useful, if not most useful for regular developers, features Maven 2.1 could offer. Don On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Brian E. Fox <bri...@reply.infinity.nu> wrote: > I thought the parallel download was already in there? I reached out to > Don several times about tests and never heard back which is unfortunate. > In my testing it did seem to work fine and was faster even with a repo > manager in place. If it's not already in there and we have no tests, > then I guess we bump it unless someone wants to make some tests? > > We probably need to run through the security work a few times as well, > this has been on my plate I just haven't had time yet. > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Casey [mailto:jdca...@commonjava.org] > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 12:12 PM > To: Maven Developers List > Subject: Re: Maven 2.1.0 Plans (a proposal of sorts) > > Benjamin Bentmann wrote: >> John Casey wrote: >> >>> At that point, we can make plans for a relatively fast release of >>> 2.1.1 for the higher-risk issues that are sitting in the 2.1.0-M* >>> buckets now...possibly parallel artifact downloads if we can ever get > >>> test coverage for that. >> >> IMHO the introduction of the parallel artifact download is a > significant >> change that is beyond bugfixing maintenance but a new feature and as >> such warrants a minor version increment, i.e. 2.2. As a user, I > dislike >> mere micro version increments when there is presumably "higher-risk". > > Couldn't agree more. In the case of parallel artifact resolution, I'm > unwilling to move on it at all until we can get a really solid test > suite written for it, and TBH I'd much prefer involving Don in that > effort, since he wrote the code and will have thought about the problem > (including, perhaps, some failed initial attempts) much more than the > rest of us. IMO, this would inform his testing, and give us a better > chance of releasing without bugs. > > I'm +1 for moving parallel resolution to 2.2, definitely. > > -john > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
