Re: [VOTE] Release Maven Scm 1.1 (take 3)
+1 2008/8/23 Olivier Lamy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, The last release of maven-scm is now 14 months old. I'd like to release maven-scm 1.1 which include two new providers git and accurev and fix some issues. We solved 41 issues : http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=13984styleName=HtmlprojectId=10527Create=Create Staging repo: http://people.apache.org/~olamy/staging-repo/ . Staging site: http://maven.apache.org/scm-1.1/ . One more issue has been fixed since take 2 ([SCM-402] - scm:checkin doesn't work on OS X 10.5 Leopard) Vote open for 72 hours. [ ] +1 [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Here my +1. Thanks -- Olivier - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven Javadoc plugin version 2.5 (take 2)
+1 -- Olivier 2008/8/22 Vincent Siveton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, We solved more than 30 issues: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=14120styleName=HtmlprojectId=11138 There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=11138status=1 Staging repo: http://people.apache.org/~vsiveton/staging-repo/ Staging site: http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-javadoc-plugin-2.5 Guide to testing staged releases: http://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-testing-releases.html Vote open for 72 hours. [ ] +1 [ ] +0 [ ] -1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MASSEMBLY-345
Wendy Smoak ha scritto: On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Petar Tahchiev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this is Petar Tahchiev from the Jakarta Cactus team. Our release depends on fixing the 345 issue of the Assembly plugin and releasing a new version of this plugin. I have created several patches and integration tests for this issue. Here is a link: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASSEMBLY-345 I chatted with Petar about this earlier today (and asked for an integration test, which he provided. :) ) I'll take a look at this one unless someone beats me to it... John, you seem to be the Assembly expert... are you planning to spend time on it in the near future? Does anyone have anything they definitely want fixed before the next Assembly release? I'd like to have this small feature included (it is required to create a sar for Apache JAMES Server): http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASSEMBLY-348 I'm not familiar with maven plugin development, I just developed my first plugin yesterday, but I've just checked out the source for the assmbly plugin and I'm trying to understand how to provide a patch for the feature above. Stefano - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MASSEMBLY-345
Stefano Bagnara ha scritto: Wendy Smoak ha scritto: On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Petar Tahchiev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this is Petar Tahchiev from the Jakarta Cactus team. Our release depends on fixing the 345 issue of the Assembly plugin and releasing a new version of this plugin. I have created several patches and integration tests for this issue. Here is a link: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASSEMBLY-345 I chatted with Petar about this earlier today (and asked for an integration test, which he provided. :) ) I'll take a look at this one unless someone beats me to it... John, you seem to be the Assembly expert... are you planning to spend time on it in the near future? Does anyone have anything they definitely want fixed before the next Assembly release? I'd like to have this small feature included (it is required to create a sar for Apache JAMES Server): http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MASSEMBLY-348 I'm not familiar with maven plugin development, I just developed my first plugin yesterday, but I've just checked out the source for the assmbly plugin and I'm trying to understand how to provide a patch for the feature above. Done! I added the feature by altering the assembly descriptor (increased mdo version to 1.1.1) and attached the diff to the above jira. The feature is incompatible with the usage of multiple formats because it overrides the default extension and the default extension now depends on the format. I added an error for that case. If there is a better approach to solve my need please suggest and I'll try to produce a new patch. Stefano - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven Scm 1.1 (take 3)
+0 if 1.1.1 will be in 3/4 weeks -1 if 1.1.1 will be ages away as I suspect the accirev code will not work and I cannot test it until 1st Sept when I return from vacation Sent from my iPod On 24 Aug 2008, at 09:58, nicolas de loof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 2008/8/23 Olivier Lamy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, The last release of maven-scm is now 14 months old. I'd like to release maven-scm 1.1 which include two new providers git and accurev and fix some issues. We solved 41 issues : http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=13984styleName=HtmlprojectId=10527Create=Create Staging repo: http://people.apache.org/~olamy/staging-repo/ . Staging site: http://maven.apache.org/scm-1.1/ . One more issue has been fixed since take 2 ([SCM-402] - scm:checkin doesn't work on OS X 10.5 Leopard) Vote open for 72 hours. [ ] +1 [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Here my +1. Thanks -- Olivier - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven Scm 1.1 (take 2)
if there is a 1.1.1 in the next 3-4 weeks, I'm +0 if it will be longer then -1 as the accurev stuff probably does not work unless you've done some major trickery the issue is that you cannot check in changes unless you use a workspace, and you cannot nest workspaces so unless the release plugin does its checkout to /tmp it will fail on release I an on vacation until sept 1st when I can give this a whirl Sent from my iPod On 22 Aug 2008, at 21:04, Olivier Lamy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan, I have already planned/think about a 1.1.1 (with bug fixes) 4/5 weeks after the 1.1. Can we wait this ?? Thanks, -- Olivier 2008/8/22 Mark Struberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]: For what I understand, this is a pure Apple/subversion problem, and has nothing to do with maven-scm. The only thing we could do is to introduce a new parameter in the maven-scm-provider-svn-commons/src/main/mdo/svn-settings.mdo 'useNonInteractive' which defaults to true. Use this information in org/apache/maven/scm/provider/svn/svnexe/command/ SvnCommandLineUtils.java to suppress the --non-interactive option. I'll attach the patch in SCM-402. LieGrü, strub --- Dan Fabulich [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am Fr, 22.8.2008: Von: Dan Fabulich [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Release Maven Scm 1.1 (take 2) An: Maven Developers List dev@maven.apache.org CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Datum: Freitag, 22. August 2008, 17:47 -0. SCM-402 scm:checkin doesn't work on OS X 10.5 Leopard http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-402 This breaks the release plugin on Leopard also. I'd mark it -1 if I thought I had time to help fix it. -Dan Olivier Lamy wrote: Hi, The last release of maven-scm is now 14 months old. I'd like to release maven-scm 1.1 which include two new providers git and accurev and fix some issues. We solved 26 issues : http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=13984styleName=HtmlprojectId=10527Create=Create Staging repo: http://people.apache.org/~olamy/staging-repo/ . Staging site: http://maven.apache.org/scm-1.1/ . Vote open for 72 hours. [ ] +1 [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Here my +1. Thanks -- Olivier --- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. http://mail.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wagon
Hi, Wagon changed to much after the beta-3 for my taste and we're pretty much in the same boat as we are with Maven 2.0.x versus 2.1.x. I would like to take the 1.0-beta-3 tag and branch it for Wagon 1.0.x, and then make trunk Wagon 1.1.x. I personally want to stabilize trunk for a release and I want to use Wagon beta-3 with some fixes. I think that 2.0.x should use this Wagon 1.0.x that I would like to make from the current beta-3 tag, and 2.1.x can start using some of the new Wagon changes. But too much was changed in a beta in Wagon. Any objections? Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven Scm 1.1 (take 2)
Wendy Smoak wrote: On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Olivier Lamy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Be sure about my spare time is not 100% sure :-) Currently there are only 7 issues for 1.1.1 (some have patches). But it looks Mark has attached a patch to SCM-402 (I can certainly apply it quickly and rebuild a release process tomorrow). IMO, this is a never ending cycle. There's always one more thing. Unless this is a regression in scm itself, I'd go ahead with this release and put the issue on the list for a patch release. +1 We need to release more often. -- Dennis Lundberg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: usesUnique=false
Brian E. Fox wrote: Given the recent fiasco over the snapshot repo, it's probably a good idea that we change the Apache root pom to have usesUnique=false and start inheriting from that version. +1 from my little corner, just to bring this back to discussion ;-) Benjamin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven Javadoc plugin version 2.5 (take 2)
+1 (non-binding) Hervé Le vendredi 22 août 2008, Vincent Siveton a écrit : Hi, We solved more than 30 issues: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=14120styleName=Ht mlprojectId=11138 There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=11138st atus=1 Staging repo: http://people.apache.org/~vsiveton/staging-repo/ Staging site: http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-javadoc-plugin-2.5 Guide to testing staged releases: http://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-testing-releases.html Vote open for 72 hours. [ ] +1 [ ] +0 [ ] -1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wagon
Hi, AFAIK, 2.0.10-RC maven branch use 1.0-beta-4. I'm not usually working on this part of our projects but I can't see a big difference between 1.0-beta-3 and 1.0-beta-4. So why not taking 1.0-beta-4 tag and branch it for Wagon 1.0.x ? -- Olivier 2008/8/24 Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, Wagon changed to much after the beta-3 for my taste and we're pretty much in the same boat as we are with Maven 2.0.x versus 2.1.x. I would like to take the 1.0-beta-3 tag and branch it for Wagon 1.0.x, and then make trunk Wagon 1.1.x. I personally want to stabilize trunk for a release and I want to use Wagon beta-3 with some fixes. I think that 2.0.x should use this Wagon 1.0.x that I would like to make from the current beta-3 tag, and 2.1.x can start using some of the new Wagon changes. But too much was changed in a beta in Wagon. Any objections? Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven Scm 1.1 (take 3)
+1 Emmanuel On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Olivier Lamy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, The last release of maven-scm is now 14 months old. I'd like to release maven-scm 1.1 which include two new providers git and accurev and fix some issues. We solved 41 issues : http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=13984styleName=HtmlprojectId=10527Create=Create Staging repo: http://people.apache.org/~olamy/staging-repo/http://people.apache.org/%7Eolamy/staging-repo/. Staging site: http://maven.apache.org/scm-1.1/ . One more issue has been fixed since take 2 ([SCM-402] - scm:checkin doesn't work on OS X 10.5 Leopard) Vote open for 72 hours. [ ] +1 [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Here my +1. Thanks -- Olivier - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wagon
On 24-Aug-08, at 2:09 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote: Hi, AFAIK, 2.0.10-RC maven branch use 1.0-beta-4. I'm not usually working on this part of our projects but I can't see a big difference between 1.0-beta-3 and 1.0-beta-4. So why not taking 1.0-beta-4 tag and branch it for Wagon 1.0.x ? Because it was patched quickly because problems were found. I know that beta-3 works. -- Olivier 2008/8/24 Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, Wagon changed to much after the beta-3 for my taste and we're pretty much in the same boat as we are with Maven 2.0.x versus 2.1.x. I would like to take the 1.0-beta-3 tag and branch it for Wagon 1.0.x, and then make trunk Wagon 1.1.x. I personally want to stabilize trunk for a release and I want to use Wagon beta-3 with some fixes. I think that 2.0.x should use this Wagon 1.0.x that I would like to make from the current beta-3 tag, and 2.1.x can start using some of the new Wagon changes. But too much was changed in a beta in Wagon. Any objections? Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- Selfish deeds are the shortest path to self destruction. -- The Seven Samuari, Akira Kirosawa - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wagon
proxies don't work properly in beta-4. Arg, it's actually after beta-2 all the changes were made and there's no real separation between bug fixes, new implementations and features added. On 24-Aug-08, at 2:09 PM, Olivier Lamy wrote: Hi, AFAIK, 2.0.10-RC maven branch use 1.0-beta-4. I'm not usually working on this part of our projects but I can't see a big difference between 1.0-beta-3 and 1.0-beta-4. So why not taking 1.0-beta-4 tag and branch it for Wagon 1.0.x ? -- Olivier 2008/8/24 Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi, Wagon changed to much after the beta-3 for my taste and we're pretty much in the same boat as we are with Maven 2.0.x versus 2.1.x. I would like to take the 1.0-beta-3 tag and branch it for Wagon 1.0.x, and then make trunk Wagon 1.1.x. I personally want to stabilize trunk for a release and I want to use Wagon beta-3 with some fixes. I think that 2.0.x should use this Wagon 1.0.x that I would like to make from the current beta-3 tag, and 2.1.x can start using some of the new Wagon changes. But too much was changed in a beta in Wagon. Any objections? Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wagon
On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: proxies don't work properly in beta-4. Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug? Proxies weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo and there wasn't a test case, not because of the significance of changes. That got fixed in beta-4. John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234 ), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing? - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Index Page of Plugin Documentation Standard
Sounds good :)
On 22/08/2008, at 7:46 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Hi,
I would like to propose the following update (excluding typos ;-) )
to the index.apt template given in the Plugin Documentation Standard
[0]:
* Usage
General instructions on how to use the Plugin Name can be found on
the {{{usage.html}usage page}}. Some more
specific use cases are described in the examples given below.
In case you still have questions regarding the plugin's usage,
please have a look at the {{{faq.html}FAQ}} and feel
free to contact the {{{mail-lists.html}user mailing list}}. The
posts to the mailing list are archived and could
already contain the answer to your question as part of an older
thread. Hence, it is also worth browsing/searching
the mail archive.
If you feel like the plugin is missing a feature or has a defect,
you can fill a feature request or bug report in our
{{{issue-tracking.html}issue tracker}}. When creating a new issue,
please provide a comprehensive description of your
concern. Especially for fixing bugs it is crucial that the
developers can reproduce your problem. For this reason,
entire debug logs, POMs or most preferably little demo projects
attached to the issue are very much appreciated.
Of course, patches are welcome, too. Contributors can check out
the project from our
{{{source-repository.html}source repository}} and will find
supplementary information in the
{{{http://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-
helping.html}guide to helping with Maven}}.
The intention is to provide more of the interesting links directly
on the index page to ease the site navigation. See [1] for a live
example.
What do you think?
Benjamin
[0] http://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-plugin-documentation.html
[1] http://people.apache.org/~bentmann/maven/pds/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Brett Porter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.0.10 performance.....
Thanks. You have 3 JIRA accounts, which is the one you use? - Brett On 23/08/2008, at 3:32 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: Brett, If someone would agree to kindly grant me karma to update issue titles, I'll change them for you. Paul On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 22/08/2008, at 8:20 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: Well, before anyone begins doing 2.1 work, take the 3.0.x tickets and update the descriptions of them. Many 3.0 tickets still descibe 2.1 in their title. The versions are right... changing descriptions is probably more hassle than it is worth. - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wagon
In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're going with 2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a beta and I don't really want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1 release. That is significant: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=10335fixfor=12544 If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I could live with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be happening to the 2.0.9 folks using beta-2. I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0-beta-3 for Wagon 1.1.x. I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and let 2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x. On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote: On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: proxies don't work properly in beta-4. Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug? Proxies weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo and there wasn't a test case, not because of the significance of changes. That got fixed in beta-4. John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234 ), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing? - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- A party which is not afraid of letting culture, business, and welfare go to ruin completely can be omnipotent for a while. -- Jakob Burckhardt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wagon
Do you have an actual problem you are trying to fix? If you don't want to go hunting and need help, just ask. There's no point fiddling versions and creating more confusion for no reason. Seriously, Wagon should be the least of your concerns in trying to stabilise things there. How about telling us what you are trying to achieve or the problems you're having instead? A month ago you were stabilising, a couple of weeks ago you were intent on rewriting significant parts, now you're stabilising for release again. Instead of being able to dig in and help out, we're wasting time trying to figure out what to call things. Cheers, Brett On 25/08/2008, at 11:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're going with 2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a beta and I don't really want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1 release. That is significant: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=10335fixfor=12544 If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I could live with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be happening to the 2.0.9 folks using beta-2. I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0-beta-3 for Wagon 1.1.x. I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and let 2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x. On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote: On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: proxies don't work properly in beta-4. Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug? Proxies weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo and there wasn't a test case, not because of the significance of changes. That got fixed in beta-4. John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234 ), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing? - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- A party which is not afraid of letting culture, business, and welfare go to ruin completely can be omnipotent for a while. -- Jakob Burckhardt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wagon
I don't have a specific problem other then the few things that have cropped up, but the vast majority of people have not tried the new wagon and you honestly have no idea what's going to happen. I would just rather be safe then repentant. I not to worried about fiddling versions, I just want to patch fix what was used for the last release myself. It's generally the case that we have problems when we do this. I personally don't think it's for no good reason: I want to do what we just decided to do with Maven itself. With Wagon we should have just cut the release and moved on. On 24-Aug-08, at 7:43 PM, Brett Porter wrote: Do you have an actual problem you are trying to fix? If you don't want to go hunting and need help, just ask. There's no point fiddling versions and creating more confusion for no reason. Seriously, Wagon should be the least of your concerns in trying to stabilise things there. How about telling us what you are trying to achieve or the problems you're having instead? A month ago you were stabilising, a couple of weeks ago you were intent on rewriting significant parts, now you're stabilising for release again. Instead of being able to dig in and help out, we're wasting time trying to figure out what to call things. Cheers, Brett On 25/08/2008, at 11:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're going with 2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a beta and I don't really want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1 release. That is significant: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=10335fixfor=12544 If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I could live with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be happening to the 2.0.9 folks using beta-2. I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0-beta-3 for Wagon 1.1.x. I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and let 2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x. On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote: On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: proxies don't work properly in beta-4. Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug? Proxies weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo and there wasn't a test case, not because of the significance of changes. That got fixed in beta-4. John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234 ), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing? - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- A party which is not afraid of letting culture, business, and welfare go to ruin completely can be omnipotent for a while. -- Jakob Burckhardt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people. -- Paul Graham - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 2.0.10 performance.....
ok, I found the right one. We've put people into maven-developers in the past for this type of thing even when they weren't committers, but instead I've created a maven-contributors group we can use (that only has edit and assign permissions) for anyone that shows genuine interest in contributing in some way. So you should be able to do this now... we can look for the jira mails to indicate the changes. Thanks for helping out. Cheers, Brett On 25/08/2008, at 11:07 AM, Brett Porter wrote: Thanks. You have 3 JIRA accounts, which is the one you use? - Brett On 23/08/2008, at 3:32 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: Brett, If someone would agree to kindly grant me karma to update issue titles, I'll change them for you. Paul On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 22/08/2008, at 8:20 AM, Paul Benedict wrote: Well, before anyone begins doing 2.1 work, take the 3.0.x tickets and update the descriptions of them. Many 3.0 tickets still descibe 2.1 in their title. The versions are right... changing descriptions is probably more hassle than it is worth. - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Updating tickets for 3.0
I plan on fixing the 3.0 ticket list to replace 2.1 in issue titles with 3.0, but it does raise a question. Should tickets contain the version? Isn't that violating the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle? I think it may be better just to strip that away. Thoughts? Paul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updating tickets for 3.0
I would personally put [regression] at the start of the subject for those that used to work in 2.0.x, and strip the version off in all cases. On 25/08/2008, at 2:19 PM, Paul Benedict wrote: I plan on fixing the 3.0 ticket list to replace 2.1 in issue titles with 3.0, but it does raise a question. Should tickets contain the version? Isn't that violating the DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) principle? I think it may be better just to strip that away. Thoughts? Paul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wagon
http://www.netbeans.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=143319 can be consider serious issue found in wagon beta-3 Milos On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 5:23 AM, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't have a specific problem other then the few things that have cropped up, but the vast majority of people have not tried the new wagon and you honestly have no idea what's going to happen. I would just rather be safe then repentant. I not to worried about fiddling versions, I just want to patch fix what was used for the last release myself. It's generally the case that we have problems when we do this. I personally don't think it's for no good reason: I want to do what we just decided to do with Maven itself. With Wagon we should have just cut the release and moved on. On 24-Aug-08, at 7:43 PM, Brett Porter wrote: Do you have an actual problem you are trying to fix? If you don't want to go hunting and need help, just ask. There's no point fiddling versions and creating more confusion for no reason. Seriously, Wagon should be the least of your concerns in trying to stabilise things there. How about telling us what you are trying to achieve or the problems you're having instead? A month ago you were stabilising, a couple of weeks ago you were intent on rewriting significant parts, now you're stabilising for release again. Instead of being able to dig in and help out, we're wasting time trying to figure out what to call things. Cheers, Brett On 25/08/2008, at 11:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're going with 2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a beta and I don't really want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1 release. That is significant: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=10335fixfor=12544 If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I could live with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be happening to the 2.0.9 folks using beta-2. I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0-beta-3 for Wagon 1.1.x. I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and let 2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x. On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote: On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: proxies don't work properly in beta-4. Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug? Proxies weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo and there wasn't a test case, not because of the significance of changes. That got fixed in beta-4. John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing? - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- A party which is not afraid of letting culture, business, and welfare go to ruin completely can be omnipotent for a while. -- Jakob Burckhardt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people. -- Paul Graham - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wagon
On 25/08/2008, at 2:58 PM, Milos Kleint wrote: http://www.netbeans.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=143319 can be consider serious issue found in wagon beta-3 Sure, but that was fixed in beta-4, along with the proxy one. I'm not aware of any outstanding issues? - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wagon
That's a maven-artifact problem: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-224 On 24-Aug-08, at 9:58 PM, Milos Kleint wrote: http://www.netbeans.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=143319 can be consider serious issue found in wagon beta-3 Milos On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 5:23 AM, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't have a specific problem other then the few things that have cropped up, but the vast majority of people have not tried the new wagon and you honestly have no idea what's going to happen. I would just rather be safe then repentant. I not to worried about fiddling versions, I just want to patch fix what was used for the last release myself. It's generally the case that we have problems when we do this. I personally don't think it's for no good reason: I want to do what we just decided to do with Maven itself. With Wagon we should have just cut the release and moved on. On 24-Aug-08, at 7:43 PM, Brett Porter wrote: Do you have an actual problem you are trying to fix? If you don't want to go hunting and need help, just ask. There's no point fiddling versions and creating more confusion for no reason. Seriously, Wagon should be the least of your concerns in trying to stabilise things there. How about telling us what you are trying to achieve or the problems you're having instead? A month ago you were stabilising, a couple of weeks ago you were intent on rewriting significant parts, now you're stabilising for release again. Instead of being able to dig in and help out, we're wasting time trying to figure out what to call things. Cheers, Brett On 25/08/2008, at 11:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're going with 2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a beta and I don't really want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1 release. That is significant: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=10335fixfor=12544 If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I could live with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be happening to the 2.0.9 folks using beta-2. I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0- beta-3 for Wagon 1.1.x. I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and let 2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x. On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote: On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: proxies don't work properly in beta-4. Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug? Proxies weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo and there wasn't a test case, not because of the significance of changes. That got fixed in beta-4. John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing? - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- A party which is not afraid of letting culture, business, and welfare go to ruin completely can be omnipotent for a while. -- Jakob Burckhardt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people. -- Paul Graham - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- Three people can keep a secret provided two of them are dead. -- Unknown - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wagon
Sorry, but I still don't really get why you think a line of development that is some time away from an alpha release needs to worry more about the stability of a component that is already in place for a point release. You could use beta-2, but I don't see the point in that either. Only 2 things have cropped up in beta-3, and they've both been fixed (WAGON-224, WAGON-225). There was one more that predated my changes, also fixed in trunk and easily worked around in Maven (WAGON-237). Sure, it would probably have been better to rename 1.0-beta-2 as 1.0 and release Wagon beta-3 as 1.1-beta-1. Hindsight is great. But plenty of time was left for discussion, enough people voted for the release, and I stand by it. Re-releasing something old as 1.0 when the others are out would just be even more confusing. I don't really get what you are trying to achieve that you can't do already. - Brett On 25/08/2008, at 1:23 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: I don't have a specific problem other then the few things that have cropped up, but the vast majority of people have not tried the new wagon and you honestly have no idea what's going to happen. I would just rather be safe then repentant. I not to worried about fiddling versions, I just want to patch fix what was used for the last release myself. It's generally the case that we have problems when we do this. I personally don't think it's for no good reason: I want to do what we just decided to do with Maven itself. With Wagon we should have just cut the release and moved on. On 24-Aug-08, at 7:43 PM, Brett Porter wrote: Do you have an actual problem you are trying to fix? If you don't want to go hunting and need help, just ask. There's no point fiddling versions and creating more confusion for no reason. Seriously, Wagon should be the least of your concerns in trying to stabilise things there. How about telling us what you are trying to achieve or the problems you're having instead? A month ago you were stabilising, a couple of weeks ago you were intent on rewriting significant parts, now you're stabilising for release again. Instead of being able to dig in and help out, we're wasting time trying to figure out what to call things. Cheers, Brett On 25/08/2008, at 11:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're going with 2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a beta and I don't really want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1 release. That is significant: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=10335fixfor=12544 If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I could live with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be happening to the 2.0.9 folks using beta-2. I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0- beta-3 for Wagon 1.1.x. I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and let 2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x. On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote: On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: proxies don't work properly in beta-4. Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug? Proxies weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo and there wasn't a test case, not because of the significance of changes. That got fixed in beta-4. John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234 ), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing? - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- A party which is not afraid of letting culture, business, and welfare go to ruin completely can be omnipotent for a while. -- Jakob Burckhardt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people. -- Paul Graham - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands,
Re: Wagon
On 24-Aug-08, at 10:10 PM, Brett Porter wrote: Sorry, but I still don't really get why you think a line of development that is some time away from an alpha release needs to worry more about the stability of a component that is already in place for a point release. You could use beta-2, but I don't see the point in that either. I'm actually more worried about 2.0.x. Only 2 things have cropped up in beta-3, and they've both been fixed (WAGON-224, WAGON-225). There was one more that predated my changes, also fixed in trunk and easily worked around in Maven (WAGON-237). Sure, it would probably have been better to rename 1.0-beta-2 as 1.0 and release Wagon beta-3 as 1.1-beta-1. Hindsight is great. But plenty of time was left for discussion, enough people voted for the release, and I stand by it. Re-releasing something old as 1.0 when the others are out would just be even more confusing. I don't really get what you are trying to achieve that you can't do already. - Brett On 25/08/2008, at 1:23 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: I don't have a specific problem other then the few things that have cropped up, but the vast majority of people have not tried the new wagon and you honestly have no idea what's going to happen. I would just rather be safe then repentant. I not to worried about fiddling versions, I just want to patch fix what was used for the last release myself. It's generally the case that we have problems when we do this. I personally don't think it's for no good reason: I want to do what we just decided to do with Maven itself. With Wagon we should have just cut the release and moved on. On 24-Aug-08, at 7:43 PM, Brett Porter wrote: Do you have an actual problem you are trying to fix? If you don't want to go hunting and need help, just ask. There's no point fiddling versions and creating more confusion for no reason. Seriously, Wagon should be the least of your concerns in trying to stabilise things there. How about telling us what you are trying to achieve or the problems you're having instead? A month ago you were stabilising, a couple of weeks ago you were intent on rewriting significant parts, now you're stabilising for release again. Instead of being able to dig in and help out, we're wasting time trying to figure out what to call things. Cheers, Brett On 25/08/2008, at 11:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're going with 2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a beta and I don't really want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1 release. That is significant: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=10335fixfor=12544 If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I could live with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be happening to the 2.0.9 folks using beta-2. I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0- beta-3 for Wagon 1.1.x. I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and let 2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x. On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote: On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: proxies don't work properly in beta-4. Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug? Proxies weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo and there wasn't a test case, not because of the significance of changes. That got fixed in beta-4. John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234 ), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing? - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- A party which is not afraid of letting culture, business, and welfare go to ruin completely can be omnipotent for a while. -- Jakob Burckhardt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- What matters is not ideas, but the people who have them. Good people can fix bad ideas, but good ideas can't save bad people. -- Paul Graham
Re: Wagon
On 25/08/2008, at 3:23 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: On 24-Aug-08, at 10:10 PM, Brett Porter wrote: Sorry, but I still don't really get why you think a line of development that is some time away from an alpha release needs to worry more about the stability of a component that is already in place for a point release. You could use beta-2, but I don't see the point in that either. I'm actually more worried about 2.0.x. Ok, I missed that comment in your original email. Too much version soup :) I still don't think there's a need to make any changes to the wagon versions now. Still catching up on the other mail, but it depends on what happens with 2.0.10 as to what that means for wagon. Seems like we either go all the way back to 2.0.9, or push forward with what is already there and being tested. I'm pretty happy with what we've covered so far. - Brett Only 2 things have cropped up in beta-3, and they've both been fixed (WAGON-224, WAGON-225). There was one more that predated my changes, also fixed in trunk and easily worked around in Maven (WAGON-237). Sure, it would probably have been better to rename 1.0-beta-2 as 1.0 and release Wagon beta-3 as 1.1-beta-1. Hindsight is great. But plenty of time was left for discussion, enough people voted for the release, and I stand by it. Re-releasing something old as 1.0 when the others are out would just be even more confusing. I don't really get what you are trying to achieve that you can't do already. - Brett On 25/08/2008, at 1:23 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: I don't have a specific problem other then the few things that have cropped up, but the vast majority of people have not tried the new wagon and you honestly have no idea what's going to happen. I would just rather be safe then repentant. I not to worried about fiddling versions, I just want to patch fix what was used for the last release myself. It's generally the case that we have problems when we do this. I personally don't think it's for no good reason: I want to do what we just decided to do with Maven itself. With Wagon we should have just cut the release and moved on. On 24-Aug-08, at 7:43 PM, Brett Porter wrote: Do you have an actual problem you are trying to fix? If you don't want to go hunting and need help, just ask. There's no point fiddling versions and creating more confusion for no reason. Seriously, Wagon should be the least of your concerns in trying to stabilise things there. How about telling us what you are trying to achieve or the problems you're having instead? A month ago you were stabilising, a couple of weeks ago you were intent on rewriting significant parts, now you're stabilising for release again. Instead of being able to dig in and help out, we're wasting time trying to figure out what to call things. Cheers, Brett On 25/08/2008, at 11:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're going with 2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a beta and I don't really want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1 release. That is significant: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=10335fixfor=12544 If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I could live with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be happening to the 2.0.9 folks using beta-2. I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0- beta-3 for Wagon 1.1.x. I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and let 2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x. On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote: On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: proxies don't work properly in beta-4. Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug? Proxies weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo and there wasn't a test case, not because of the significance of changes. That got fixed in beta-4. John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234 ), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing? - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com -- A party which is not afraid of letting culture, business, and welfare go to ruin completely can be omnipotent for a while. -- Jakob Burckhardt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/
Re: Wagon
On 24-Aug-08, at 10:10 PM, Brett Porter wrote: Sorry, but I still don't really get why you think a line of development that is some time away from an alpha release needs to worry more about the stability of a component that is already in place for a point release. You could use beta-2, but I don't see the point in that either. Only 2 things have cropped up in beta-3, and they've both been fixed (WAGON-224, WAGON-225). There was one more that predated my changes, also fixed in trunk and easily worked around in Maven (WAGON-237). Sure, it would probably have been better to rename 1.0-beta-2 as 1.0 and release Wagon beta-3 as 1.1-beta-1. Hindsight is great. But plenty of time was left for discussion, enough people voted for the release, and I stand by it. Re-releasing something old as 1.0 when the others are out would just be even more confusing. I don't really get what you are trying to achieve that you can't do already. You don't seem to be listening. Look at what happened with what were intended to be simple changes with 2.0.x and look at where we are how many weeks later. With all our integration tests, RCs and best efforts things just manage to slip though. No one's fault, that's just the way it generally goes here. The changes that have been made in Wagon have been run through the same groove over and over again and we haven't gotten a huge number of people testing the RCs. That's also human nature. I also said if we followed the path where what were truly bug fixes could be separate from the major refactorings that would be fine to. I know that when Maven 2.0.x is released with Wagon beta-XX it will be the first time it's heavily vetted and I would rather not have it be a surprise. We also made the decision with respect to Maven after we ventured down the RC path. So hindsight is great. I just think it's the prudent thing to do given it affects almost everything in Maven. - Brett On 25/08/2008, at 1:23 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: I don't have a specific problem other then the few things that have cropped up, but the vast majority of people have not tried the new wagon and you honestly have no idea what's going to happen. I would just rather be safe then repentant. I not to worried about fiddling versions, I just want to patch fix what was used for the last release myself. It's generally the case that we have problems when we do this. I personally don't think it's for no good reason: I want to do what we just decided to do with Maven itself. With Wagon we should have just cut the release and moved on. On 24-Aug-08, at 7:43 PM, Brett Porter wrote: Do you have an actual problem you are trying to fix? If you don't want to go hunting and need help, just ask. There's no point fiddling versions and creating more confusion for no reason. Seriously, Wagon should be the least of your concerns in trying to stabilise things there. How about telling us what you are trying to achieve or the problems you're having instead? A month ago you were stabilising, a couple of weeks ago you were intent on rewriting significant parts, now you're stabilising for release again. Instead of being able to dig in and help out, we're wasting time trying to figure out what to call things. Cheers, Brett On 25/08/2008, at 11:12 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: In short I don't want to go hunting, and akin to what we're going with 2.0.x and 2.1.x. The changes were too great for a beta and I don't really want to put them into the 3.0-alpha-1 release. That is significant: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=10335fixfor=12544 If the bug fixes could be separated from large refactoring I could live with it. Nothing immensely terrible seems to be happening to the 2.0.9 folks using beta-2. I meant rollback to beta-2 for a 1.0.x and then take the 1.0- beta-3 for Wagon 1.1.x. I think 2.0.x should stay with what I suggest as Wagon 1.0.x and let 2.1.x use Wagon 1.1.x. On 24-Aug-08, at 5:56 PM, Brett Porter wrote: On 25/08/2008, at 7:50 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote: proxies don't work properly in beta-4. Are you recalling this from memory or have a particular bug? Proxies weren't working in beta-3 because I made a stupid typo and there wasn't a test case, not because of the significance of changes. That got fixed in beta-4. John reported a potential backwards compatibility issue (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WAGON-234 ), but it hasn't been confirmed yet. Is this what you are seeing? - Brett -- Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.exist.com/bporter/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, Jason -- Jason van Zyl Founder, Apache Maven jason at sonatype dot com
AW: [VOTE] Release Maven Scm 1.1 (take 3)
+1 LieGrü, strub --- Olivier Lamy [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am Sa, 23.8.2008: Von: Olivier Lamy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: [VOTE] Release Maven Scm 1.1 (take 3) An: Maven Developers List [EMAIL PROTECTED], scm-dev@maven.apache.org Datum: Samstag, 23. August 2008, 20:23 Hi, The last release of maven-scm is now 14 months old. I'd like to release maven-scm 1.1 which include two new providers git and accurev and fix some issues. We solved 41 issues : http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=13984styleName=HtmlprojectId=10527Create=Create Staging repo: http://people.apache.org/~olamy/staging-repo/ . Staging site: http://maven.apache.org/scm-1.1/ . One more issue has been fixed since take 2 ([SCM-402] - scm:checkin doesn't work on OS X 10.5 Leopard) Vote open for 72 hours. [ ] +1 [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Here my +1. Thanks -- Olivier __ Do You Yahoo!? Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven Scm 1.1 (take 3)
+1 Andy On 23 Aug 2008, at 19:23, Olivier Lamy wrote: Hi, The last release of maven-scm is now 14 months old. I'd like to release maven-scm 1.1 which include two new providers git and accurev and fix some issues. We solved 41 issues : http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=13984styleName=HtmlprojectId=10527Create=Create Staging repo: http://people.apache.org/~olamy/staging-repo/ . Staging site: http://maven.apache.org/scm-1.1/ . One more issue has been fixed since take 2 ([SCM-402] - scm:checkin doesn't work on OS X 10.5 Leopard) Vote open for 72 hours. [ ] +1 [ ] +0 [ ] -1 Here my +1. Thanks -- Olivier
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven Scm 1.1 (take 3)
-1 Not until SCM-392 has been fixed. This is a critical issue for us. And I don't imagine that it is that an uncommon a problem either. http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-392 -Chris -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--Release-Maven-Scm-1.1-%28take-3%29-tp19123852p19135931.html Sent from the Maven - SCM mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: Release/SCM broken for eclipse?
Dennis Lundberg-2 wrote: Hang on a second, Subversion is telling us that your directory workspace is not under version control here. And that is a correct observation, since your parent is in the FireDragon directory. I wonder who is telling svn to perform svn operations on that directory. Would you mind sharing the --file and --target temporary files with us, as they might give us some clues. Unfortunately that is the expected command line behavior in this scenario. This is an issue with the subversion command line client. It requires a common anchor point so that it can commit all four (more than two really) projects as a single atomic commit. This issue is covered in subversion via: http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2381 For the scenario above, Subclipse does each individual project as a single commit (so we loose the atomic commit). From comments from the link above, Maven needs to cater for this situation in a similar way (ie individual commits). This has been logged as: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-392 It really needs to be fixed ASAP, as it is a critical issue for us. -Chris -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Release-SCM-broken-for-eclipse--tp18426787p19135955.html Sent from the Maven - SCM mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [VOTE] Release Maven Scm 1.1 (take 3)
+0 I want it to be released because of the Git integration but the SVN issue (SCM-392) seems important as well. - Imran On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 5:23 AM, ChrisGWarp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -1 Not until SCM-392 has been fixed. This is a critical issue for us. And I don't imagine that it is that an uncommon a problem either. http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/SCM-392 -Chris -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-VOTE--Release-Maven-Scm-1.1-%28take-3%29-tp19123852p19135931.html Sent from the Maven - SCM mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Imran M Yousuf Entrepreneur Software Engineer Smart IT Engineering Dhaka, Bangladesh Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blog: http://imyousuf-tech.blogs.smartitengineering.com/ Mobile: +880-1711402557
