Re: CD, version numbers, IDE integration
We will have a full write up but we need to change the way resolution works to
make building partial sets from the reactor correctly (--projects, --am, and
--amd). My requirement is that there be full documentation before we release it.
On Aug 31, 2014, at 10:40 PM, Milos Kleint mkle...@gmail.com wrote:
netbeans is also embedding 3.0.5 (which is used for project loading
exclusively, for building any version can be used)
Milos
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Mark Derricutt m...@talios.com wrote:
Currently IntelliJ embeds 3.0.5 and gets perplexed over anything 3.2.x
specific ( it really doesn't like the tiles plugin ).
I have a fork of Idea where I've bumped the embedded version of Maven but
as yet, it dies horribly with RMI Classloader issues :(
On 1 Sep 2014, at 4:57, Benson Margulies wrote:
sure that IntelliJ would be most perplexed by
version${our-version}/version at the top of a project hierarchy. I
gave up on Eclipse some time ago, but I'd be nearly as surprised if
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
Thanks,
Jason
--
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
http://twitter.com/takari_io
-
happiness is like a butterfly: the more you chase it, the more it will
elude you, but if you turn your attention to other things, it will come
and sit softly on your shoulder ...
-- Thoreau
CD, version numbers, IDE integration
As of Maven 3.2.x, we have this ability to parameterize a project
version, or to drop some sort of extension point module into a Maven
install to take control of versioning.
I'm considering pushing this as an approach. However, I would be
grateful for some more details about it. Has anyone published anything
substantive?
In particular, how do people get IDEs to cope with this? I'm pretty
sure that IntelliJ would be most perplexed by
version${our-version}/version at the top of a project hierarchy. I
gave up on Eclipse some time ago, but I'd be nearly as surprised if
M2E did not suffer digestive distress in the same circumstance. Is the
practical alternative to put a fixed string in there but use the
extension mechanism to override it in actual builds?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: CD, version numbers, IDE integration
Takari's CD solution will be open sourced around the end of September. We have
two implementations in progress: one for a customer with a large project (500+
modules) in p4, and another for Facebook Presto which is a smaller project (20+
modules). The large project has been using the mechanism for 3-4 months now,
and we're just finishing the first prototype for the Presto team. We still have
many details to work out and it's my primary focus right now. When we're done
and it works for these two projects the documentation will be published in the
form of an online book. One of our requirements is interop with Eclipse and
IDEA.
We are currently using a mechanism to pass in a revision, but we have a working
version of a metadata generator that turn 1.0.0.generation into something like
1.0.0.[date]-[buildNumber]-[sha1] for the Git implementation. Happy to chat
about it offline but we won't release it until it works completely end-to-end
for our two customers.
On Aug 31, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Benson Margulies bimargul...@gmail.com wrote:
As of Maven 3.2.x, we have this ability to parameterize a project
version, or to drop some sort of extension point module into a Maven
install to take control of versioning.
I'm considering pushing this as an approach. However, I would be
grateful for some more details about it. Has anyone published anything
substantive?
In particular, how do people get IDEs to cope with this? I'm pretty
sure that IntelliJ would be most perplexed by
version${our-version}/version at the top of a project hierarchy. I
gave up on Eclipse some time ago, but I'd be nearly as surprised if
M2E did not suffer digestive distress in the same circumstance. Is the
practical alternative to put a fixed string in there but use the
extension mechanism to override it in actual builds?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
Thanks,
Jason
--
Jason van Zyl
Founder, Apache Maven
http://twitter.com/jvanzyl
http://twitter.com/takari_io
-
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral
philosophy; that is,
the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
-- John Kenneth Galbraith
Re: CD, version numbers, IDE integration
Currently IntelliJ embeds 3.0.5 and gets perplexed over anything 3.2.x
specific ( it really doesn't like the tiles plugin ).
I have a fork of Idea where I've bumped the embedded version of Maven
but as yet, it dies horribly with RMI Classloader issues :(
On 1 Sep 2014, at 4:57, Benson Margulies wrote:
sure that IntelliJ would be most perplexed by
version${our-version}/version at the top of a project hierarchy. I
gave up on Eclipse some time ago, but I'd be nearly as surprised if
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
Re: CD, version numbers, IDE integration
netbeans is also embedding 3.0.5 (which is used for project loading
exclusively, for building any version can be used)
Milos
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:22 AM, Mark Derricutt m...@talios.com wrote:
Currently IntelliJ embeds 3.0.5 and gets perplexed over anything 3.2.x
specific ( it really doesn't like the tiles plugin ).
I have a fork of Idea where I've bumped the embedded version of Maven but
as yet, it dies horribly with RMI Classloader issues :(
On 1 Sep 2014, at 4:57, Benson Margulies wrote:
sure that IntelliJ would be most perplexed by
version${our-version}/version at the top of a project hierarchy. I
gave up on Eclipse some time ago, but I'd be nearly as surprised if
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@maven.apache.org
