Re: [PLEASE TEST] 2.1.0-M1-RC12 of Maven (was: Maven 2.0.10-RC*)

2008-09-03 Thread John Casey
np. The issue is: MNG-3740. I have a fix and test case here, but I need to clean up some IT issues related to RC12's fixes before I spin a new RC. Arnaud HERITIER wrote: ok thanks a lot for your work !!! cheers arnaud On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 8:26 PM, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok

Re: [PLEASE TEST] 2.1.0-M1-RC12 of Maven (was: Maven 2.0.10-RC*)

2008-09-03 Thread Arnaud HERITIER
ok thanks a lot for your work !!! cheers arnaud On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 8:26 PM, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay, I'm able to reproduce it here, and hopefully I'll have it debugged > and fixed (with test case) tonight. > > -john > > Arnaud HERITIER wrote: > >> John, >> >> I tried t

Re: [PLEASE TEST] 2.1.0-M1-RC12 of Maven (was: Maven 2.0.10-RC*)

2008-09-03 Thread John Casey
Okay, I'm able to reproduce it here, and hopefully I'll have it debugged and fixed (with test case) tonight. -john Arnaud HERITIER wrote: John, I tried to use RC12 to build all our plugins (on win XP). E:\Dev\oss\maven-plugins-trunk>mvn -version Maven version: 2.1.0-M1-RC12 Java version: 1

Re: [PLEASE TEST] 2.1.0-M1-RC12 of Maven (was: Maven 2.0.10-RC*)

2008-09-02 Thread Arnaud HERITIER
John, I tried to use RC12 to build all our plugins (on win XP). E:\Dev\oss\maven-plugins-trunk>mvn -version Maven version: 2.1.0-M1-RC12 Java version: 1.5.0_14 Default locale: en_FR, platform encoding: Cp1252 OS name: "windows xp" version: "5.1" arch: "x86" family: "windows" It fails with : E

Re: [PLEASE TEST] 2.1.0-M1-RC12 of Maven (was: Maven 2.0.10-RC*)

2008-09-01 Thread Henrique Prange
Hi John, FYI, I've tried this RC with a couple of projects (including the plug-in project) and no problems found. Thank you very much. Cheers, Henrique John Casey wrote: Hi everyone, Sorry if the subject of this message is a little confusing, but we're in the process of relabeling the co

[PLEASE TEST] 2.1.0-M1-RC12 of Maven (was: Maven 2.0.10-RC*)

2008-08-29 Thread John Casey
Hi everyone, Sorry if the subject of this message is a little confusing, but we're in the process of relabeling the code in this release candidate to be part of a new version, a departure from the 2.0.x codebase. This release candidate contains some large modifications, even though it's meant