Ralph Goers schrieb:
They just shouldn't change things significantly without good
arguments.
Which are only the ones you agree with?
I am really just trying to warn you about doing something dangerous.
Mixing release versions with snapshot versions. The release plugin takes
care of this -
thomas, checkout the whole maven-scm project and do a mvn clean install from
the top
btw, we should move this discussion over to the general dev list, since scm-dev
will be dropped soon.
LieGrue,
strub
- Ursprüngliche Mail
Von: Thomas Schüttel schuet...@web.de
An:
We should have a policy discussion about the use of Java 5 in our
plugins. I will start another thread for that.
Your question here about the Checkstyle Plugin depends on the outcome of
the policy discussion.
nicolas de loof wrote:
Hi
You may have noticed discussion on user list about
Hi
Recent discussions about the Checkstyle Plugin has raised the question
of requiring Java 5 in Maven Plugins.
We will IIUC require Java 5 for Maven 2.2. So when do we start using it
in our plugins?
[A] We start using it across the board for the next release of every
plugin that wants to use
I myself have been very conservative about Java updates because I still have
to support Java 1.3 applications. I learned to use Maven with JDK6 and
target 1.3 environment.
for this reason I'm +1 with [A] or [B] (depending on the status of SNAPSHOT
plugins that in some cas include major fix
A couple of things that caught my attention in this commit. First some
general ones:
- Please commit each issue by itself, as it makes rolling back stuff
much easier.
- If you can, please try to to code beautifications in separate commits
if possible. It tends to distract from the real issue
I don't think we should go out of our way yet to convert everything to
java5, preserving 1.4 compatibility (essentially 2.0/2.1 compatibility)
should be considered. However if there's a reason, like the checkstyle
update requies java 5, then we should do it and set a prerequisite of maven
2.2.0.
On Fri May 15 2009 12:18:59 pm Brian Fox wrote:
I don't think we should go out of our way yet to convert everything to
java5, preserving 1.4 compatibility (essentially 2.0/2.1 compatibility)
should be considered. However if there's a reason, like the checkstyle
update requies java 5, then we
Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Fri May 15 2009 12:18:59 pm Brian Fox wrote:
I don't think we should go out of our way yet to convert everything to
java5, preserving 1.4 compatibility (essentially 2.0/2.1 compatibility)
should be considered. However if there's a reason, like the checkstyle
update
Hi Paul,
Author: pgier
Date: Fri May 15 16:16:59 2009
New Revision: 775216
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=775216view=rev
Log:
Add configuration for creating the src dist files during a realease.
Added:
maven/ant-tasks/branches/maven-ant-tasks-2.0.x/src/assembly/
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Can we move this out of here and do in some other part of the
configuration processing?
I will investigate. The challenge is that we definitively want
expressions in the plugin configuration to be evaluated lately and say
not during the initial model construction
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi there,
OK. So you would NOT mind if maven adds some new features that
are compatible to older versions of maven.
Thats all I am fighting for.
No fighting required, just make a patch. If it's truly backwards compatible,
then there wouldn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
By inheriting the version, groupId, etc. from the parent - yes. The
release plugin still handles the pom transformations and the tagging
(SCM URLs, snapshot to release version, release to next snapshot
version, etc.)
But there is nothing to
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Benjamin Bentmann
benjamin.bentm...@udo.edu wrote:
Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Fri May 15 2009 12:18:59 pm Brian Fox wrote:
I don't think we should go out of our way yet to convert everything to
java5, preserving 1.4 compatibility (essentially 2.0/2.1
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Joerg Hohwiller jo...@j-hohwiller.dewrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
By inheriting the version, groupId, etc. from the parent - yes. The
release plugin still handles the pom transformations and the tagging
(SCM URLs, snapshot to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Stephen,
If A(1.0) has root(1.2-SNAPSHOT) as a parent it should never have been
released as the pom for A(1.0) is based on content from root(1.2-SNAPSHOT)
which is subject to change... which means that a released pom does not have
a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Off topic.
Actually I believe this isn't true anymore.
See http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MECLIPSE-344
all dependent artefacts that are available in your eclipse-workspace
will be attached as project references even if they are not in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I think you are referring to one of the other patches that was
submitted, not what I committed to the MNG-624 branch.
MNG-624 or maven-2.1.x-MNG-624 ?
A big problem could be the encoding issue if you store XML in a string
and then want to
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Joerg Hohwiller jo...@j-hohwiller.dewrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I think you are referring to one of the other patches that was
submitted, not what I committed to the MNG-624 branch.
MNG-624 or maven-2.1.x-MNG-624 ?
A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi there,
After I got lost in the thread Progress on support for large projects
and opened MNG-4161, I started to collect everything that is going on
in JIRA about this. I added this to MNG-4161 but also wanted to
point this out here:
* MNG-624
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Brian,
Your better bet will be to try and get this documented so it can be
implemented in 3.x.
I would surely NOT mind. What do you expect?
A new xdoc? Or a diff to the actual source of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi again,
Your better bet will be to try and get this documented so it can be
implemented in 3.x.
no change to see some improvement about version maintenance in 2.x?
See the list of issues I just posted and also look at the votes.
Thanks
Jörg
Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Hi Paul,
Author: pgier
Date: Fri May 15 16:16:59 2009
New Revision: 775216
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=775216view=rev
Log:
Add configuration for creating the src dist files during a realease.
Added:
Do you need simple IT-projects that I shall attach to MNG-4161 and related?
Sample ITs for sure, and some level of detail in a proposal like these:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVENUSER/User+Proposals
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
- If I understand the new configuration for Checkstyle 5 (haven't used
it yet myself), you have changed the configuration for
HtmlPackage/JavadocPackage compared to how it used to work.
Not sure whether that's related to Dennis' remarks but it appears the
recent
Hi Jason,
Thanks for your log.
Yes I think your changes are corrects. Could you please merge them to
the branch too [1]?
Cheers,
Vincent
[1]
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/branches/maven-site-plugin-doxia-1.1
2009/5/15 jvan...@apache.org:
Author: jvanzyl
Date: Fri May 15
On May 15, 2009, at 1:10 PM, Joerg Hohwiller wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I think you are referring to one of the other patches that was
submitted, not what I committed to the MNG-624 branch.
MNG-624 or maven-2.1.x-MNG-624 ?
I think it was maven-2.1.x-MNG-624.
You have to understand that although the problem might seem trivial, fixes
for problems like this can't break existing builds. That makes even the
simplest fix challenging.
Not only that, it needs to cooperate with other functionality... just like
we found with the previous patch. It would
On 16/05/2009, at 5:06 AM, Stephane Nicoll wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Benjamin Bentmann
benjamin.bentm...@udo.edu wrote:
Daniel Kulp wrote:
On Fri May 15 2009 12:18:59 pm Brian Fox wrote:
I don't think we should go out of our way yet to convert
everything to
java5,
On 16/05/2009, at 6:44 AM, Paul Gier wrote:
Ok, it's fixed. Thanks for the suggestions! Brian are the
requirements for the source distribution defined somewhere? So I
can make sure I'm not missing anything?
What you have now looks right to me.
I would personally not bother with the
30 matches
Mail list logo
