Re: Releasing 3.1.0-alpha-1
Nope, I just got off a plane. I'll cut it in the morning. But you can build from master, it will be the same :-) On Mar 24, 2013, at 5:44 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote: > Did this get rolled at all? If so, where can we download it? > > Mark > > > Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> I didn't have time to fix MSITE-683 but will work on it this WE too: we >> should >> have a working m-site-p 3.3-SNAPSHOT at the time Maven 3.1.0-alpha-1 is out >> >> Regards, >> >> Hervé >> >> Le jeudi 21 mars 2013 19:30:20 Jason van Zyl a écrit : >>> >>> If no one objects I'm going to roll a release of 3.1.0-alpha-1 over the >>> weekend. There are plugins that don't work but I think those can be sorted >>> out over a few alphas. Being alpha will make it clear it's not for the >>> faint of heart. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> -- >>> Jason van Zyl >>> Founder& CTO, Sonatype >>> Founder, Apache Maven >>> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >>> - >>> >>> the course of true love never did run smooth ... >>> >>> -- Shakespeare >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder & CTO, Sonatype Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl - believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it, not even if i have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. -- Buddha
Re: Releasing 3.1.0-alpha-1
Did this get rolled at all? If so, where can we download it? Mark Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: +1 I didn't have time to fix MSITE-683 but will work on it this WE too: we should have a working m-site-p 3.3-SNAPSHOT at the time Maven 3.1.0-alpha-1 is out Regards, Hervé Le jeudi 21 mars 2013 19:30:20 Jason van Zyl a écrit : If no one objects I'm going to roll a release of 3.1.0-alpha-1 over the weekend. There are plugins that don't work but I think those can be sorted out over a few alphas. Being alpha will make it clear it's not for the faint of heart. Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder& CTO, Sonatype Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl - the course of true love never did run smooth ... -- Shakespeare - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Releasing 3.1.0-alpha-1
+1 I didn't have time to fix MSITE-683 but will work on it this WE too: we should have a working m-site-p 3.3-SNAPSHOT at the time Maven 3.1.0-alpha-1 is out Regards, Hervé Le jeudi 21 mars 2013 19:30:20 Jason van Zyl a écrit : > If no one objects I'm going to roll a release of 3.1.0-alpha-1 over the > weekend. There are plugins that don't work but I think those can be sorted > out over a few alphas. Being alpha will make it clear it's not for the > faint of heart. > > Thanks, > > Jason > > -- > Jason van Zyl > Founder & CTO, Sonatype > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > - > > the course of true love never did run smooth ... > > -- Shakespeare - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Releasing 3.1.0-alpha-1
I will have a go at it with the android maven plugin and fix what I can.. manfred > +1 Look forward to giving this a harsh bashing and a shaking! > > Jason van Zyl wrote: >> >> If no one objects I'm going to roll a release of 3.1.0-alpha-1 over >> the weekend. There are plugins that don't work but I think those can >> be sorted out over a few alphas. Being alpha will make it clear it's >> not for the faint of heart. > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Releasing 3.1.0-alpha-1
+1 Look forward to giving this a harsh bashing and a shaking! Jason van Zyl wrote: If no one objects I'm going to roll a release of 3.1.0-alpha-1 over the weekend. There are plugins that don't work but I think those can be sorted out over a few alphas. Being alpha will make it clear it's not for the faint of heart.
Releasing 3.1.0-alpha-1
If no one objects I'm going to roll a release of 3.1.0-alpha-1 over the weekend. There are plugins that don't work but I think those can be sorted out over a few alphas. Being alpha will make it clear it's not for the faint of heart. Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder & CTO, Sonatype Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl - the course of true love never did run smooth ... -- Shakespeare
Re: Releasing 3.1.0
Hi Jason, I can help in the analysis. I recently written some annotation checking tool in japa (javaparser) and ASM :) Do you want to analyze the source code or the class files? Regards, g On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:56 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > Did you finally tried "full graph analysis on Central to see what Maven > plugins > actually depend on SLF4J or an implementation" as intended on february 1st? > This was a great idea to have some facts to predict problems like SONAR-3979 > > But if such idea is harder than expected, doing a release and seeing bug > reports is better than waiting, I have no big problem. > > And personnally, I gave up on implementing slf4j isolation: that's a Maven > internal I can't understand yet. > > > So, ok for me for the release plan > > Regards, > > Hervé > > Le mardi 26 février 2013 09:05:36 Jason van Zyl a écrit : >> As I posted previously I would like to do the 3.1.0 release but I don't want >> to do the work of isolating SLF4J until it's shown that it will be a >> problem. I don't the believe the adoption of 3.1.0 is going to be so quick >> that we can't create a fix if necessary. I would rather do the release in a >> lean style and not do work for theoretical problems. >> >> In full disclosure I have a release of Tesla I want to make and I already >> have JSR330, SLF4J/Logback, and Eclipse Aether integrated so I would like >> to try and help get the JSR330, SLF4J out the door and then get Eclipse >> Aether integrated. >> >> If anyone feels strongly about trying to create the SLF4J isolation and is >> going to start the work to do it shortly there's no harm in waiting. But I >> would prefer to start getting the 3.1.0 release out the door, get some >> feedback and adjust if necessary. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jason >> >> -- >> Jason van Zyl >> Founder & CTO, Sonatype >> Founder, Apache Maven >> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >> - >> >> Simplex sigillum veri. (Simplicity is the seal of truth.) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Releasing 3.1.0
+1 on giving people one week from the Jason's initial mail in this thread. Will the release be a RC or the real deal? We've had this discussion before and I honestly don't remember what we decided, but I think cutting a RC first for core is good. So maybe cut a RC now and have us/people test that in parallel to the slf4j isolation objection period? /Anders On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would propose that we give until this time next week for somebody to > stand up and state that they feel the isolation is necessary and that they > are prepared to do the work to implement the isolation. > > If there is at least one person committing themselves, then we should > discuss the timetable they see for the implementation of isolation, and > make a judgement call on the basis of that discussion. > > If there is nobody feeling strongly about isolation, then at that point I > think it is safe to proceed with cutting 3.1.0 (assuming it is ready at > that point, or if not ready by then, finish the remaining tasks) > > Until/unless somebody steps up, I would think it is safe to proceed on the > basis that the release will be cut as soon as it is ready and the week has > expired. > > Thoughts? > > -Stephen > > > > On 26 February 2013 14:05, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > > As I posted previously I would like to do the 3.1.0 release but I don't > > want to do the work of isolating SLF4J until it's shown that it will be a > > problem. I don't the believe the adoption of 3.1.0 is going to be so > quick > > that we can't create a fix if necessary. I would rather do the release > in a > > lean style and not do work for theoretical problems. > > > > In full disclosure I have a release of Tesla I want to make and I already > > have JSR330, SLF4J/Logback, and Eclipse Aether integrated so I would like > > to try and help get the JSR330, SLF4J out the door and then get Eclipse > > Aether integrated. > > > > If anyone feels strongly about trying to create the SLF4J isolation and > is > > going to start the work to do it shortly there's no harm in waiting. But > I > > would prefer to start getting the 3.1.0 release out the door, get some > > feedback and adjust if necessary. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jason > > > > -- > > Jason van Zyl > > Founder & CTO, Sonatype > > Founder, Apache Maven > > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > > - > > > > Simplex sigillum veri. (Simplicity is the seal of truth.) > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Releasing 3.1.0
Did you finally tried "full graph analysis on Central to see what Maven plugins actually depend on SLF4J or an implementation" as intended on february 1st? This was a great idea to have some facts to predict problems like SONAR-3979 But if such idea is harder than expected, doing a release and seeing bug reports is better than waiting, I have no big problem. And personnally, I gave up on implementing slf4j isolation: that's a Maven internal I can't understand yet. So, ok for me for the release plan Regards, Hervé Le mardi 26 février 2013 09:05:36 Jason van Zyl a écrit : > As I posted previously I would like to do the 3.1.0 release but I don't want > to do the work of isolating SLF4J until it's shown that it will be a > problem. I don't the believe the adoption of 3.1.0 is going to be so quick > that we can't create a fix if necessary. I would rather do the release in a > lean style and not do work for theoretical problems. > > In full disclosure I have a release of Tesla I want to make and I already > have JSR330, SLF4J/Logback, and Eclipse Aether integrated so I would like > to try and help get the JSR330, SLF4J out the door and then get Eclipse > Aether integrated. > > If anyone feels strongly about trying to create the SLF4J isolation and is > going to start the work to do it shortly there's no harm in waiting. But I > would prefer to start getting the 3.1.0 release out the door, get some > feedback and adjust if necessary. > > Thanks, > > Jason > > -- > Jason van Zyl > Founder & CTO, Sonatype > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > - > > Simplex sigillum veri. (Simplicity is the seal of truth.)
Re: Releasing 3.1.0
With a bit of a notice (don't care if it's one week or 4 days or….), I certainly support this path. We need to talking about it and get 3.1 out. Dan On Feb 26, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: > As I posted previously I would like to do the 3.1.0 release but I don't want > to do the work of isolating SLF4J until it's shown that it will be a problem. > I don't the believe the adoption of 3.1.0 is going to be so quick that we > can't create a fix if necessary. I would rather do the release in a lean > style and not do work for theoretical problems. > > In full disclosure I have a release of Tesla I want to make and I already > have JSR330, SLF4J/Logback, and Eclipse Aether integrated so I would like to > try and help get the JSR330, SLF4J out the door and then get Eclipse Aether > integrated. > > If anyone feels strongly about trying to create the SLF4J isolation and is > going to start the work to do it shortly there's no harm in waiting. But I > would prefer to start getting the 3.1.0 release out the door, get some > feedback and adjust if necessary. > > Thanks, > > Jason > > -- > Jason van Zyl > Founder & CTO, Sonatype > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > - > > Simplex sigillum veri. (Simplicity is the seal of truth.) > > > > > -- Daniel Kulp dk...@apache.org - http://dankulp.com/blog Talend Community Coder - http://coders.talend.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Releasing 3.1.0
OK, I follow the logic now. On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > I thought about that, but I suspect that we are at least 1 week away from > being ready to cut 3.1.0 anyway, so 1 week seems safest and gives potential > volunteers time to chime in. If Jason thinks he will be ready to cut 3.1.0 > in 4 days time, then I would consider 4 days... > > > On 26 February 2013 14:16, Benson Margulies wrote: > >> I think that a week is quite generous. I'd cut it down to 4 days. In >> any case, I support the general scheme here. >> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Stephen Connolly >> wrote: >> > I would propose that we give until this time next week for somebody to >> > stand up and state that they feel the isolation is necessary and that >> they >> > are prepared to do the work to implement the isolation. >> > >> > If there is at least one person committing themselves, then we should >> > discuss the timetable they see for the implementation of isolation, and >> > make a judgement call on the basis of that discussion. >> > >> > If there is nobody feeling strongly about isolation, then at that point I >> > think it is safe to proceed with cutting 3.1.0 (assuming it is ready at >> > that point, or if not ready by then, finish the remaining tasks) >> > >> > Until/unless somebody steps up, I would think it is safe to proceed on >> the >> > basis that the release will be cut as soon as it is ready and the week >> has >> > expired. >> > >> > Thoughts? >> > >> > -Stephen >> > >> > >> > >> > On 26 February 2013 14:05, Jason van Zyl wrote: >> > >> >> As I posted previously I would like to do the 3.1.0 release but I don't >> >> want to do the work of isolating SLF4J until it's shown that it will be >> a >> >> problem. I don't the believe the adoption of 3.1.0 is going to be so >> quick >> >> that we can't create a fix if necessary. I would rather do the release >> in a >> >> lean style and not do work for theoretical problems. >> >> >> >> In full disclosure I have a release of Tesla I want to make and I >> already >> >> have JSR330, SLF4J/Logback, and Eclipse Aether integrated so I would >> like >> >> to try and help get the JSR330, SLF4J out the door and then get Eclipse >> >> Aether integrated. >> >> >> >> If anyone feels strongly about trying to create the SLF4J isolation and >> is >> >> going to start the work to do it shortly there's no harm in waiting. >> But I >> >> would prefer to start getting the 3.1.0 release out the door, get some >> >> feedback and adjust if necessary. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Jason >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jason van Zyl >> >> Founder & CTO, Sonatype >> >> Founder, Apache Maven >> >> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >> >> - >> >> >> >> Simplex sigillum veri. (Simplicity is the seal of truth.) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org >> >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Releasing 3.1.0
I thought about that, but I suspect that we are at least 1 week away from being ready to cut 3.1.0 anyway, so 1 week seems safest and gives potential volunteers time to chime in. If Jason thinks he will be ready to cut 3.1.0 in 4 days time, then I would consider 4 days... On 26 February 2013 14:16, Benson Margulies wrote: > I think that a week is quite generous. I'd cut it down to 4 days. In > any case, I support the general scheme here. > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Stephen Connolly > wrote: > > I would propose that we give until this time next week for somebody to > > stand up and state that they feel the isolation is necessary and that > they > > are prepared to do the work to implement the isolation. > > > > If there is at least one person committing themselves, then we should > > discuss the timetable they see for the implementation of isolation, and > > make a judgement call on the basis of that discussion. > > > > If there is nobody feeling strongly about isolation, then at that point I > > think it is safe to proceed with cutting 3.1.0 (assuming it is ready at > > that point, or if not ready by then, finish the remaining tasks) > > > > Until/unless somebody steps up, I would think it is safe to proceed on > the > > basis that the release will be cut as soon as it is ready and the week > has > > expired. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -Stephen > > > > > > > > On 26 February 2013 14:05, Jason van Zyl wrote: > > > >> As I posted previously I would like to do the 3.1.0 release but I don't > >> want to do the work of isolating SLF4J until it's shown that it will be > a > >> problem. I don't the believe the adoption of 3.1.0 is going to be so > quick > >> that we can't create a fix if necessary. I would rather do the release > in a > >> lean style and not do work for theoretical problems. > >> > >> In full disclosure I have a release of Tesla I want to make and I > already > >> have JSR330, SLF4J/Logback, and Eclipse Aether integrated so I would > like > >> to try and help get the JSR330, SLF4J out the door and then get Eclipse > >> Aether integrated. > >> > >> If anyone feels strongly about trying to create the SLF4J isolation and > is > >> going to start the work to do it shortly there's no harm in waiting. > But I > >> would prefer to start getting the 3.1.0 release out the door, get some > >> feedback and adjust if necessary. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Jason > >> > >> -- > >> Jason van Zyl > >> Founder & CTO, Sonatype > >> Founder, Apache Maven > >> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > >> - > >> > >> Simplex sigillum veri. (Simplicity is the seal of truth.) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > >
Re: Releasing 3.1.0
Yup, sounds reasonable. On Feb 26, 2013, at 9:14 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > I would propose that we give until this time next week for somebody to > stand up and state that they feel the isolation is necessary and that they > are prepared to do the work to implement the isolation. > > If there is at least one person committing themselves, then we should > discuss the timetable they see for the implementation of isolation, and > make a judgement call on the basis of that discussion. > > If there is nobody feeling strongly about isolation, then at that point I > think it is safe to proceed with cutting 3.1.0 (assuming it is ready at > that point, or if not ready by then, finish the remaining tasks) > > Until/unless somebody steps up, I would think it is safe to proceed on the > basis that the release will be cut as soon as it is ready and the week has > expired. > > Thoughts? > > -Stephen > > > > On 26 February 2013 14:05, Jason van Zyl wrote: > >> As I posted previously I would like to do the 3.1.0 release but I don't >> want to do the work of isolating SLF4J until it's shown that it will be a >> problem. I don't the believe the adoption of 3.1.0 is going to be so quick >> that we can't create a fix if necessary. I would rather do the release in a >> lean style and not do work for theoretical problems. >> >> In full disclosure I have a release of Tesla I want to make and I already >> have JSR330, SLF4J/Logback, and Eclipse Aether integrated so I would like >> to try and help get the JSR330, SLF4J out the door and then get Eclipse >> Aether integrated. >> >> If anyone feels strongly about trying to create the SLF4J isolation and is >> going to start the work to do it shortly there's no harm in waiting. But I >> would prefer to start getting the 3.1.0 release out the door, get some >> feedback and adjust if necessary. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jason >> >> -- >> Jason van Zyl >> Founder & CTO, Sonatype >> Founder, Apache Maven >> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >> - >> >> Simplex sigillum veri. (Simplicity is the seal of truth.) >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder & CTO, Sonatype Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl - To do two things at once is to do neither. -- Publilius Syrus, Roman slave, first century B.C.
Re: Releasing 3.1.0
I think that a week is quite generous. I'd cut it down to 4 days. In any case, I support the general scheme here. On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote: > I would propose that we give until this time next week for somebody to > stand up and state that they feel the isolation is necessary and that they > are prepared to do the work to implement the isolation. > > If there is at least one person committing themselves, then we should > discuss the timetable they see for the implementation of isolation, and > make a judgement call on the basis of that discussion. > > If there is nobody feeling strongly about isolation, then at that point I > think it is safe to proceed with cutting 3.1.0 (assuming it is ready at > that point, or if not ready by then, finish the remaining tasks) > > Until/unless somebody steps up, I would think it is safe to proceed on the > basis that the release will be cut as soon as it is ready and the week has > expired. > > Thoughts? > > -Stephen > > > > On 26 February 2013 14:05, Jason van Zyl wrote: > >> As I posted previously I would like to do the 3.1.0 release but I don't >> want to do the work of isolating SLF4J until it's shown that it will be a >> problem. I don't the believe the adoption of 3.1.0 is going to be so quick >> that we can't create a fix if necessary. I would rather do the release in a >> lean style and not do work for theoretical problems. >> >> In full disclosure I have a release of Tesla I want to make and I already >> have JSR330, SLF4J/Logback, and Eclipse Aether integrated so I would like >> to try and help get the JSR330, SLF4J out the door and then get Eclipse >> Aether integrated. >> >> If anyone feels strongly about trying to create the SLF4J isolation and is >> going to start the work to do it shortly there's no harm in waiting. But I >> would prefer to start getting the 3.1.0 release out the door, get some >> feedback and adjust if necessary. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jason >> >> -- >> Jason van Zyl >> Founder & CTO, Sonatype >> Founder, Apache Maven >> http://twitter.com/jvanzyl >> - >> >> Simplex sigillum veri. (Simplicity is the seal of truth.) >> >> >> >> >> >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: Releasing 3.1.0
I would propose that we give until this time next week for somebody to stand up and state that they feel the isolation is necessary and that they are prepared to do the work to implement the isolation. If there is at least one person committing themselves, then we should discuss the timetable they see for the implementation of isolation, and make a judgement call on the basis of that discussion. If there is nobody feeling strongly about isolation, then at that point I think it is safe to proceed with cutting 3.1.0 (assuming it is ready at that point, or if not ready by then, finish the remaining tasks) Until/unless somebody steps up, I would think it is safe to proceed on the basis that the release will be cut as soon as it is ready and the week has expired. Thoughts? -Stephen On 26 February 2013 14:05, Jason van Zyl wrote: > As I posted previously I would like to do the 3.1.0 release but I don't > want to do the work of isolating SLF4J until it's shown that it will be a > problem. I don't the believe the adoption of 3.1.0 is going to be so quick > that we can't create a fix if necessary. I would rather do the release in a > lean style and not do work for theoretical problems. > > In full disclosure I have a release of Tesla I want to make and I already > have JSR330, SLF4J/Logback, and Eclipse Aether integrated so I would like > to try and help get the JSR330, SLF4J out the door and then get Eclipse > Aether integrated. > > If anyone feels strongly about trying to create the SLF4J isolation and is > going to start the work to do it shortly there's no harm in waiting. But I > would prefer to start getting the 3.1.0 release out the door, get some > feedback and adjust if necessary. > > Thanks, > > Jason > > -- > Jason van Zyl > Founder & CTO, Sonatype > Founder, Apache Maven > http://twitter.com/jvanzyl > - > > Simplex sigillum veri. (Simplicity is the seal of truth.) > > > > > >
Releasing 3.1.0
As I posted previously I would like to do the 3.1.0 release but I don't want to do the work of isolating SLF4J until it's shown that it will be a problem. I don't the believe the adoption of 3.1.0 is going to be so quick that we can't create a fix if necessary. I would rather do the release in a lean style and not do work for theoretical problems. In full disclosure I have a release of Tesla I want to make and I already have JSR330, SLF4J/Logback, and Eclipse Aether integrated so I would like to try and help get the JSR330, SLF4J out the door and then get Eclipse Aether integrated. If anyone feels strongly about trying to create the SLF4J isolation and is going to start the work to do it shortly there's no harm in waiting. But I would prefer to start getting the 3.1.0 release out the door, get some feedback and adjust if necessary. Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder & CTO, Sonatype Founder, Apache Maven http://twitter.com/jvanzyl - Simplex sigillum veri. (Simplicity is the seal of truth.)
