On 10/02/06, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for taking care of this Kaare. > About the release we could make an alpha, although i think it's better > to have the bugs fixed and go for the 1.0 final.
I agree. i will fix the issues, and then release a rc with hopes for a relase. But now the versionno is 2.0-snapshot, should we change it to 1.0-snapsot ? That sounds a little strange to me, perhaps we just should let the inital versionno mistake live and release the first version as 2.0 > On 2/10/06, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/10/06, Kaare Nilsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 10/02/06, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > - mojos run in compile and test-compile phase, which mean that > > > > standard java compiler may run before it, thus failing in some cases > > > > (I believe is when a test class extends a main class already weaved). > > > > Don't know if compiler can be removed from aspectj mojo or aspectj > > > > should be moved to plexus compiler, if not it has to run in the > > > > process-sources and process-test-sources phase. > > > > > > The problem by putting it in the process sources phase is that the ajc > > > compiler does nothing to the sourcefiles, but only to the classfiles, > > > so if it is to work having it in the process sources phase, I need to > > > know if a ajc compile would make the std java compiler to do nothing > > > to that class afterwards and then overwrite any modifications ajc does > > > to the class. > > > > > > Actually it does, it compiles the sources, which can be seen as > > "process" them. It doesn't require classes to be compiled. > > > > I'll create jira issues to structure this conversation a bit. > > > > > -- > I could give you my word as a Spaniard. > No good. I've known too many Spaniards. > -- The Princess Bride >
