+1 go for it. On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Andreas Pieber <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 for releasing them from the same staging repo. Otherwise good luck for > PR 1.7.5 :-) > > Kind regards, > Andreas > > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 08:55, Harald Wellmann <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Am 01.09.2011 09:06, schrieb Andreas Pieber: >> >> >>> (h) Does this version already include all the changes you >>> were planning to do to make the next Pax Runner release work >>> more smoothly? If anything is missing, I'm ready to help >>> out... >>> >>> >>> Thank you very much, but except from your request for the m2e >>> configuration everything should be included :-) Once this is in >>> we can go ahead and release master-2.0.0. >>> >>> >> I've added the m2e stuff to the master POM and changed Pax Runner and Pax >> Exam to use master 2.0.0-SNAPSHOT as parent. The CI builds are ok. >> >> The next project waiting to be released is Pax Runner 1.7.5, so I suggest >> this will be the guinea pig for the new master POM. >> >> If we release the Master and Pax Runner from the same staging repository, >> this will give us a chance to fix the master in case it causes any problems >> during the release of Pax Runner. >> >> Best regards, >> Harald >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> general mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ops4j.org/**mailman/listinfo/general<http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > > -- Toni Menzel Source <http://tonimenzel.com>
_______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
