Yes, I think we should cancel and fix. /Anders
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 19:27, Tony Chemit <che...@codelutin.com> wrote: > On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 18:54:06 +0100 > Anders Hammar <and...@hammar.net> wrote: > >> -0 >> Tested with jboss-packaging-m-p and it builds and the site is >> produced. BUT, I see the same things on jboss-packaging-m-p as >> Roberts. Also, the reports are not listed in the left hand menu in >> alphebetical order any longer (might be a site plugin issue?). > I did not update the site-m-p to 3.0, there is still some issues > on it and we should probably go back to a 3.0-beta-3 version? > > For the license-m-p I use the beta-3 version which still works fine... > > For the checkstyle problem, as mojo project should be single module > does it feel ok to just set the not aggregated report ? > > Should I cancel right now the release and fix problem to start a second > fresh release ? > >> >> /Anders >> >> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 17:38, Robert Scholte >> <rfscho...@codehaus.org> wrote: >> > Thanks for picking this up! >> > >> > But... I've tried it on jdiff-m-p and it suddenly has 2 checkstyle >> > report entries: a basic and an aggregate report. >> > Since we're talking about the parent-pom here I have to say -1. >> > I've heard there are some problems with surefire/failsafe reports >> > since 2.10 too (maybe someone can confirm this...), at least worth >> > checking. > > Could we then use the 2.9 version ? > > Tony. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: > > http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
