Re: Maven 1.1 (was Re: svn commit: r330729 - /gump/metadata/project/struts.xml)
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 05:55:48AM +0100, Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Bill Barker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The version of dom4j that Maven 1.0.2 uses is quite old - some prerelase of 1.4. Maybe we could upgrade to Maven 1.1? I just tried with Maven 1.1b2, and Maven chokes on the Excalibur project.xml long before getting to Struts. It looks like there isn't enough backwards compatibility in Maven to make it possible to upgrade the version that Gump is using. That's unfortunate. Thanks for checking. Heh. I'm sure maven would appreciate a bug report, so they can fix it :-) -LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Maven 1.1 (was Re: svn commit: r330729 - /gump/metadata/project/struts.xml)
We probably need a compatibility option, but it's listed on the known incompatibility pages. We actually started validating the project.xml files. Some people have a lot of random content in there that was previously silenty ignored. Maybe its worth considering them a failed build for the purposes of Gump so that they update it? - Brett On 11/14/05, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 05:55:48AM +0100, Stefan Bodewig wrote: On Sun, 13 Nov 2005, Bill Barker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The version of dom4j that Maven 1.0.2 uses is quite old - some prerelase of 1.4. Maybe we could upgrade to Maven 1.1? I just tried with Maven 1.1b2, and Maven chokes on the Excalibur project.xml long before getting to Struts. It looks like there isn't enough backwards compatibility in Maven to make it possible to upgrade the version that Gump is using. That's unfortunate. Thanks for checking. Heh. I'm sure maven would appreciate a bug report, so they can fix it :-) -LSD - 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: Maven 1.1 (was Re: svn commit: r330729 - /gump/metadata/project/struts.xml)
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 09:53:01PM +1100, Brett Porter wrote: We probably need a compatibility option, but it's listed on the known incompatibility pages. Aw, that sucks as a concept! I thought maven1 was going to stay compatible and there'd be painfulness only once (maven1 - maven2)? We actually started validating the project.xml files. Some people have a lot of random content in there that was previously silenty ignored. Grr. Very useful, that was. I know I did stuff like jsd custom-metadata-here/ /jsd :-) Maybe its worth considering them a failed build for the purposes of Gump so that they update it? IMHO maven is broken and its behaviour should change. Validate XML if there is a reference to a DTD or a schema or a pomVersion bigger than X, otherwise preserve the old behavior. Or something. If maven is not going to change, then yes, that would make sense, but I think some people are not going to be very happy. cheers! LSD - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Maven 1.1 (was Re: svn commit: r330729 - /gump/metadata/project/struts.xml)
On 11/14/05, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 09:53:01PM +1100, Brett Porter wrote: We probably need a compatibility option, but it's listed on the known incompatibility pages. Aw, that sucks as a concept! I thought maven1 was going to stay compatible and there'd be painfulness only once (maven1 - maven2)? Why is having to set a compat option painful? It's about getting better metadata - a lot of people make typos and don't realise it, and its hard to track down. There's nothing in there we set out to break existing builds with, but we did drop support for things that we said a long time ago were unsupported. IMHO maven is broken and its behaviour should change. Validate XML if there is a reference to a DTD or a schema or a pomVersion bigger than X, otherwise preserve the old behavior. Or something. There is a schema. It's optional to declare it. If maven is not going to change, then yes, that would make sense, but I think some people are not going to be very happy. Most people have been happy to change their pom, not realising the elements weren't being used before. If this is something you think is an issue, then by all means complain to the relevant list. On the gump side, I can't see why you wouldn't use the latest no matter how broken you think it is. Isn't that the point? - Brett - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
