Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/4/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/4/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
On 12/4/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/4/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Thanks for all your help. These last suggestions worked.
I built the site, tested my changes, then pushed the site.
I DON'T have my key set up. where do I do this, it's a pain to keep
typing in my password, but doable.
As indicated on the building page, you should follow the
On 12/5/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Thanks for all your help. These last suggestions worked.
I built the site, tested my changes, then pushed the site.
I DON'T have my key set up. where do I do this, it's a pain to keep
typing in my password, but doable.
As
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/4/05, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Brett said that this *should* work, so I decided to try it myself. I
received the same results as you did Phil, regarding maven --info, but I
think I understand what is going on now. I have posted a
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
If commons component A extends the project.xml file from commons-build
these dependencies are transfered to that component, meaning that
component A doesn't have to worry about dependencies for site generation.
However, if commons component B does *not* extend the
Thanks for your help figuring out what the options are, Dennis. See
comments interspersed.
On 12/5/05, Dennis Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/4/05, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Brett said that this *should* work, so I decided to
On 12/5/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for your help figuring out what the options are, Dennis. See
comments interspersed.
On 12/5/05, Dennis Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/4/05, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
If commons component A extends the project.xml file from commons-build
these dependencies are transfered to that component, meaning that
component A doesn't have to worry about dependencies for site generation.
However, if commons component B
Phil Steitz wrote:
snip
Thanks for all your help. These last suggestions worked.
I built the site, tested my changes, then pushed the site.
I DON'T have my key set up. where do I do this, it's a pain to keep
typing in my password, but doable.
As indicated on the building page, you
On 12/5/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
Logging on via ssh -1 works.
Does apache accept protocol 2 ssh keys?
snap/
Atleast the RSA one, AFAICT.
-Rahul
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
Sorry, thought you were...
Phil
On 12/4/05, Rahul Akolkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/4/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My attempt to help the next person in line avoid the same confusion
(by updating step 12) is available as 37779 [1].
-Rahul
[1]
On 12/4/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, 1.6.
This is sort of what I meant when I said it's harder to do these
releases. How is one supposed to KNOW what versions of these 30 or 40
plugins you have to have in order to build
On 12/4/05, Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/4/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, 1.6.
This is sort of what I meant when I said it's harder to do these
releases. How is one supposed to KNOW what versions of
Dion Gillard wrote:
If we really do *have to have* a specific release of a plugin, it
should be a dependency of the project.
Noone should be forced to remember it.
Worst case, we should provide a link to suggested upgrades and details
about what to expect if you don't.
Which brings me to
On 12/4/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dion Gillard wrote:
If we really do *have to have* a specific release of a plugin, it
should be a dependency of the project.
Noone should be forced to remember it.
Worst case, we should provide a link to suggested upgrades and
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/4/05, Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/4/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, 1.6.
This is sort of what I meant when I said it's harder to do these
releases. How is one supposed to KNOW what
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/4/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is another inaccuracy in the instructions. Step 14 says the
dependencies are listed in STATUS.html. Net, at least doesn't have a
STATUS.html. These seem to be generated from project.xml.
Good point. Patch /
On 12/4/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/4/05, Dion Gillard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/4/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, 1.6.
This is sort of what I meant when I said it's harder to do these
On 12/4/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/4/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is another inaccuracy in the instructions. Step 14 says the
dependencies are listed in STATUS.html. Net, at least doesn't have a
STATUS.html. These seem to be
Martin Cooper wrote:
On 12/4/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/4/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is another inaccuracy in the instructions. Step 14 says the
dependencies are listed in STATUS.html. Net, at least doesn't have a
STATUS.html.
On 12/4/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
On 12/4/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/4/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is another inaccuracy in the instructions. Step 14 says the
dependencies are listed in
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Brett said that this *should* work, so I decided to try it myself. I
received the same results as you did Phil, regarding maven --info, but I
think I understand what is going on now. I have posted a question about
this on the maven-users list to see if I can get some
On 12/4/05, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Brett said that this *should* work, so I decided to try it myself. I
received the same results as you did Phil, regarding maven --info, but I
think I understand what is going on now. I have posted a question about
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/4/05, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Brett said that this *should* work, so I decided to try it myself. I
received the same results as you did Phil, regarding maven --info, but I
think I understand what is going on now. I have posted a
On 12/4/05, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/4/05, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Brett said that this *should* work, so I decided to try it myself. I
received the same results as you did Phil, regarding maven --info, but
I
On 12/4/05, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/4/05, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/4/05, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Brett said that this *should* work, so I decided to try it myself. I
received the same
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/4/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
On 12/4/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/4/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is another inaccuracy in the instructions. Step 14 says the
On 12/4/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/4/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Cooper wrote:
On 12/4/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/4/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is another
Sheesh, the release process has gotten much hairier since I last did it!
5 hours and I'm still not all the way there. And this was supposed to
be a simple release.
Phooey.
I decided that that easiest way to do this simple release fixing ONLY
the 1.3 compatibility problem would be to work
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sheesh, the release process has gotten much hairier since I last did it!
5 hours and I'm still not all the way there. And this was supposed to
be a simple release.
Phooey.
I decided that that easiest way to do this simple release fixing ONLY
You'll ned maven 1.0.2 plus the latest release of any plugin that barfs.
Plus you'll need various project properties set. See commons-io for a
recent working example.
And yes you are right, releasing with svn and maven at ASF is a right
royal pain.
Stephen
Steve Cohen wrote:
Sheesh, the
On 12/3/05, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You'll ned maven 1.0.2 plus the latest release of any plugin that barfs.
Plus you'll need various project properties set. See commons-io for a
recent working example.
And yes you are right, releasing with svn and maven at ASF is a right
statcvs and svn dont work together (yet)...
http://www.researchkitchen.co.uk/blog/archives/13
I just turned off the statcvs report last time.
Steve Cohen wrote:
Sheesh, the release process has gotten much hairier since I last did it!
5 hours and I'm still not all the way there. And this
Rory Winston wrote:
statcvs and svn dont work together (yet)...
http://www.researchkitchen.co.uk/blog/archives/13
I just turned off the statcvs report last time.
where do you do that? Project.xml?
-
To unsubscribe,
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rory Winston wrote:
statcvs and svn dont work together (yet)...
http://www.researchkitchen.co.uk/blog/archives/13
I just turned off the statcvs report last time.
where do you do that? Project.xml?
snip/
Yup, for this project.xml
Yes, remove the reference to the statcvs report from the reports
element. You should obviously also check in the change so the project
builds correctly from svn sources.
You should have no problem building from branches, tags, etc., as long
as commons-build is checked out as a peer.
Phil
On
Thanks guys. statcvs gone. Past that hurdle.
Now this one:
xdoc:jelly-transform:
[echo] Generating
/home/scohen/commons-net/branches/NET_1_4_1/target/docs/javadoc.html
from
/home/scohen/commons-net/branches/NET_1_4_1/target/generated-xdocs/javadoc.xml
Could not find the class:
You need to make sure you are running version 1.9.2 of the maven xdoc plugin.
maven plugin:install
maven
maven-xdoc-plugin
1.9.2
Phil
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks guys. statcvs gone. Past that hurdle.
Now this one:
xdoc:jelly-transform:
[echo]
Nope, 1.6.
This is sort of what I meant when I said it's harder to do these
releases. How is one supposed to KNOW what versions of these 30 or 40
plugins you have to have in order to build a release?
Does Jakarta or Jakarta-commons have a page that tells you the minimum
maven setup needed
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, 1.6.
This is sort of what I meant when I said it's harder to do these
releases. How is one supposed to KNOW what versions of these 30 or 40
plugins you have to have in order to build a release?
Does Jakarta or Jakarta-commons have a
okay, made it down to step 12 now.
* Update Jakarta News Page Add a standard news item announcing
the release to the current Jakarta news page. Look for the page whose
name covers today's date in the site/xdocs/site/news directory. For
example, the news for a release created in July
On 12/3/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, 1.6.
This is sort of what I meant when I said it's harder to do these
releases. How is one supposed to KNOW what versions of these 30 or 40
plugins you have to have in order to
Pls disregard. I figured it out.
Steve Cohen wrote:
okay, made it down to step 12 now.
* Update Jakarta News Page Add a standard news item announcing the
release to the current Jakarta news page. Look for the page whose name
covers today's date in the site/xdocs/site/news directory.
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
okay, made it down to step 12 now.
* Update Jakarta News Page Add a standard news item announcing
the release to the current Jakarta news page. Look for the page whose
name covers today's date in the site/xdocs/site/news directory. For
On 12/3/05, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, 1.6.
This is sort of what I meant when I said it's harder to do these
releases. How is one supposed to KNOW what versions of
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pls disregard. I figured it out.
snip/
Yup, noticed that as I clicked send to the earlier email. I think
you've a typo, the id for the net 1.4.1 news item should be 20051203.1
(instead of 2005203.1)
-Rahul
Steve Cohen wrote:
okay, made it
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/3/05, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, 1.6.
This is sort of what I meant when I said it's harder to do these
releases. How is one supposed to KNOW what
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/3/05, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, 1.6.
This is sort of what I meant when I said it's harder to do these
releases. How is one supposed to KNOW what
Yes, thanks, fixed it now.
Rahul Akolkar wrote:
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pls disregard. I figured it out.
snip/
Yup, noticed that as I clicked send to the earlier email. I think
you've a typo, the id for the net 1.4.1 news item should be 20051203.1
(instead of
Wow, who would have thought the smallest of releases would produce this
much email traffic???
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/3/05, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, 1.6.
This is sort of what I meant when I said it's harder to do these
On 12/3/05, Dennis Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Phil Steitz wrote:
snip
Another thing that might work would be to add explicit dependencies to
the required versions in commons-build's project.xml. Then executing
even the clean target there would make maven download and install them
On 12/3/05, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, 1.6.
This is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/3/05, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, 1.6.
This is sort of what I meant when I said it's harder to do these
releases. How is one supposed to KNOW what versions of these 30 or 40
plugins you have to have in order to build a release?
and what if one doesn't want to be on a
On 12/3/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Phil Steitz wrote:
On 12/3/05, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope, 1.6.
This is sort of what I meant when I said it's harder to do these
releases. How is one
On 12/3/05, Rahul Akolkar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/3/05, Steve Cohen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
okay, made it down to step 12 now.
snip/
However, there is no such file since 2nd quarter of 2005, and the
index.xml mentions that this has now been retired, and the apache site
now
My attempt to help the next person in line avoid the same confusion
(by updating step 12) is available as 37779 [1].
-Rahul
[1] http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37779
Applied. You know, you can do this yourself ;-) Any commons
committer can update commons-build and
On 12/4/05, Phil Steitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My attempt to help the next person in line avoid the same confusion
(by updating step 12) is available as 37779 [1].
-Rahul
[1] http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37779
Applied. You know, you can do this yourself ;-)
60 matches
Mail list logo
