+1
Emmanuel
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Arnaud HERITIER
arnaud.herit...@exoplatform.com wrote:
Hi all,
I'd like to propose giving commit access to Stephen Connolly.
He is already a committer @ Mojo for many monthes and did a great work on
several plugins.
He is the author of the
+1
Vincent
2009/9/6 Arnaud HERITIER arnaud.herit...@exoplatform.com:
Hi all,
I'd like to propose giving commit access to Stephen Connolly.
He is already a committer @ Mojo for many monthes and did a great work on
several plugins.
He is the author of the very useful versions plugin. He is
Stephen,
If you're already an Apache committer just let me know what your id
is, if fill out a CLA[1] and follow the instructions to send it in.
When the CLA is processed we'll get your account setup.
[1]: http://www.apache.org/licenses/
On 2009-09-09, at 12:45 PM, Vincent Siveton wrote:
vsive...@apache.org wrote:
Author: vsiveton
Date: Wed Sep 9 13:52:40 2009
New Revision: 812962
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=812962view=rev
Log:
o switch to 2.1 maven prerequisite
Why?
Modified:
maven/plugins/trunk/maven-project-info-reports-plugin/pom.xml
Modified:
OK, this is related to animal-sniffer.
I have a new packaging type packagingsignature/packaging
This is designed to capture the signatures of an API, e.g. Java SE 1.4, Java
SE 1.5, etc.
But of course, it can do so much more, the way I have it set up you can do
something like so:
project
Packaging was originally meant to model a archive of some sort. The
POM packaging is stretching it because lifecycles are mapped to
packaging and we needed something different. I think this here too
might also be stretching it. I don't think an archive with API
signatures is a packaging.
2009/9/9 Jason van Zyl jvan...@sonatype.com
Packaging was originally meant to model a archive of some sort. The POM
packaging is stretching it because lifecycles are mapped to packaging and we
needed something different. I think this here too might also be stretching
it. I don't think an
On 2009-09-09, at 6:56 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
2009/9/9 Jason van Zyl jvan...@sonatype.com
Packaging was originally meant to model a archive of some sort. The
POM
packaging is stretching it because lifecycles are mapped to
packaging and we
needed something different. I think this here
2009/9/9 Jason van Zyl jvan...@sonatype.com
On 2009-09-09, at 6:56 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
2009/9/9 Jason van Zyl jvan...@sonatype.com
Packaging was originally meant to model a archive of some sort. The POM
packaging is stretching it because lifecycles are mapped to packaging and
we
I wouldn't implement any of this like you are but that's me and you're
free to do what you like.
You should be able to put the lifecycle in an extension and then you
can use it as you like. I would be opposed to adding this packaging to
the core of Maven as we have done with things like
I agree with the subsequent discussion that I'm not sure why you need
a lifecycle for it, but that doesn't seem relevant to your question:
On 10/09/2009, at 2:36 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
The question comes, where do we put the configuration about what
signature
to check.
Solution 3,
11 matches
Mail list logo
