Re: [1/2] maven-wagon git commit: [WAGON-474] Upgrade and revise all tests for Jetty 8

redhat7/openjdk 7 ( latest) this test fails on timeout. I have seen this issue before not lately. Used to work on 2.9, 2 10, and 2.11) -D On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Michael Osipov wrote: > Am 2016-12-26 um 01:45 schrieb Dan Tran: > >> this branch has one test

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Wagon 2.11

Am 2016-12-25 um 19:51 schrieb Dan Tran: Just want to confirm, your FreeBSD and build.apache.org's ubuntu see the same test failure?? As you have already noticed, the branch is up. It is preliminary work, but should be quite complete. The runTestSecuredGet() and friends failures might be

Re: [1/2] maven-wagon git commit: [WAGON-474] Upgrade and revise all tests for Jetty 8

Am 2016-12-26 um 01:45 schrieb Dan Tran: this branch has one test consistently fail test on my local redhat 7, java 7 Running org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.HugeFileDownloadTest What does it say? What JDK version do you use? This test works for me on two operating systems and five JDK

Re: [1/2] maven-wagon git commit: [WAGON-474] Upgrade and revise all tests for Jetty 8

this branch has one test consistently fail test on my local redhat 7, java 7 Running org.apache.maven.wagon.providers.http.HugeFileDownloadTest On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 3:58 PM, wrote: > Repository: maven-wagon > Updated Branches: > refs/heads/jetty-8 [created]

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Wagon 2.11

Am 2016-12-25 um 19:51 schrieb Dan Tran: Just want to confirm, your FreeBSD and build.apache.org's ubuntu see the same test failure?? Yes, I had always the same two build failures as the Ubuntu box in contrast to Windows. I am currently testing the same code on different JDKs also to see

Re: maven-wagon git commit: [WAGON-471] Clean up dependency mess (reported by dependency:analyze)

Am 2016-12-25 um 21:34 schrieb Dan Tran: is it necessary to introduce org.slf4j slf4j-simple as compile scope? It is not in compile scope. Please have a look into dependencyManagement in parent. The default scope for this dependency is test:

Re: maven-wagon git commit: [WAGON-471] Clean up dependency mess (reported by dependency:analyze)

is it necessary to introduce org.slf4j slf4j-simple as compile scope? Thanks -Dan On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 12:10 PM, wrote: > Repository: maven-wagon > Updated Branches: > refs/heads/master 4da2accfd -> b451e418e > > > [WAGON-471] Clean up dependency mess

Re: svn commit: r1775971 - /maven/plugins/trunk/maven-pmd-plugin/pom.xml

To stop my confusion from slipping onto others: Whenever I talked about project vs. dependency resolution, just forget about that to be different. That's the result of my confusion during working on MRESOLVER-8. There is no difference. There should be no difference. There had been a difference

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Wagon 2.11

Just want to confirm, your FreeBSD and build.apache.org's ubuntu see the same test failure?? Do you think we should cancel the vote and wait for your fix? Thanks -Dan On Sun, Dec 25, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Michael Osipov wrote: > Am 2016-12-25 um 18:45 schrieb Dan Tran: > >>

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Wagon 2.11

Am 2016-12-25 um 18:45 schrieb Dan Tran: Thank Michael * Test failures at windows are intermittent. It is a known issue since the last few versions * No issue at my local redhat 7/java7 build * I am seeing test failures at https://builds.apache.org/view/All/job/maven-wagon/1323/

Re: svn commit: r1775971 - /maven/plugins/trunk/maven-pmd-plugin/pom.xml

>From what I can tell, the resolver now behaves exactly as the API Javadoc states it should. I've also written various test cases for the resolver testing the documented behaviour. From the resolver point of view, MRESOLVER-8 and MRESOLVER-9 and MRESOLVER-10 are really "just" bugfixes. How that

Re: [VOTE] Releasing Wagon 2.11

Thank Michael * Test failures at windows are intermittent. It is a known issue since the last few versions * No issue at my local redhat 7/java7 build * I am seeing test failures at https://builds.apache.org/view/All/job/maven-wagon/1323/starting with your change for WAGON-472. Dont

Re: svn commit: r1775971 - /maven/plugins/trunk/maven-pmd-plugin/pom.xml

Am 12/25/16 um 11:57 schrieb Robert Scholte: > In Sun, 25 Dec 2016 05:23:14 +0100, Christian Schulte > wrote: > >> Am 12/24/16 um 18:40 schrieb Guillaume Boué: >>> Why would the PMD plugin care about what Doxia require transitively? >>> Christian, can you explain a bit more

Re: svn commit: r1775971 - /maven/plugins/trunk/maven-pmd-plugin/pom.xml

good representation of such dependencies question we should work on, since I'm sure our current algorithm sometimes give wrong result from human point of view What I don't know yet is if "human point of view" can be a simple algorithm improvement, or if there are some cases where there is no

Re: svn commit: r1775971 - /maven/plugins/trunk/maven-pmd-plugin/pom.xml

I'm amused how your single question give 3 answers (I'll add mine) that are all accurate, but answer to a different interpretation of your question my own interpretation of your question: PMD plugin has some reporting goals, that depend on Doxia. And if report mojos get Doxia dependencies

Re: svn commit: r1775971 - /maven/plugins/trunk/maven-pmd-plugin/pom.xml

I think we should finetune the definition of "nearest wins"-strategy: Which elements are matchers and which are merged? What happens to the scope? Is it different for direct and transitive dependencies? On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 05:21:00 +0100, Christian Schulte wrote: Am

Re: svn commit: r1775971 - /maven/plugins/trunk/maven-pmd-plugin/pom.xml

In Sun, 25 Dec 2016 05:23:14 +0100, Christian Schulte wrote: Am 12/24/16 um 18:40 schrieb Guillaume Boué: Why would the PMD plugin care about what Doxia require transitively? Christian, can you explain a bit more why those changes are needed? Classpath consistency.

Re: svn commit: r1775971 - /maven/plugins/trunk/maven-pmd-plugin/pom.xml

How does a nearer transitive dependency get affected? A->B(compile)->C->D A->E(test)->D Will D now get Test scope or does it still retain compile On Sun 25 Dec 2016 at 04:41, Christian Schulte wrote: > Am 12/24/16 um 17:59 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: > > > +1 > > > > > > notice