Give me some hours, I think there's at least one JIRA ticket that I want to
close as fixed.
/Anders
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
> Hi,
> Some improvements has been made for compiler plugin.
> Thanks to all folks who participate !
> So now the compiler will use javax.too
Hi,
personally I'd like to see at least one 3.x release that is again able to
calculate a proper build sequence. M3 is broken in this regard and you
cannot even rely on its results, because it uses and packs stale SNAPSHOTs.
Therefore we're still locked to M221. However, first plugins start to
Hi,
Some improvements has been made for compiler plugin.
Thanks to all folks who participate !
So now the compiler will use javax.tools (if available) btw it's
possible to block this new feature to use the old stuff with javac
As a remember for early testers it's available here:
https://repository
2012/11/11 Jason van Zyl :
>
> On Nov 11, 2012, at 2:49 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
>>
>> Perso I propose a change by pointing you (you means other maven dev
>> folks too) to a branch I made somewhere but you commit code without
>> listening POV from others.
>> If you could wait to hear what other t
On Nov 11, 2012, at 5:49 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> Le samedi 10 novembre 2012 18:08:02 Jason van Zyl a écrit :
>>> 2. plugins or components: using Aether API would mean that it won't work
>>> with Maven 2 or 3.0. With maven-dependency-tree layer as compatibility
>>> layer, the problem disappear
Le samedi 10 novembre 2012 18:08:02 Jason van Zyl a écrit :
> > 2. plugins or components: using Aether API would mean that it won't work
> > with Maven 2 or 3.0. With maven-dependency-tree layer as compatibility
> > layer, the problem disappears. But DependencyGraphBuilder API is rather
> > limited
Hi,
The vote has passed with the following result :
+1 (binding):Hervé Boutemy, Olivier Lamy, Robert Scholte, Kristian Rosenvold
+1 (non binding): Tony Chemit
I will promote the artifacts to the central repo.
-
To unsubscribe, e
+1
2012/11/7 Kristian Rosenvold :
> Hi,
>
> We solved 10 issues:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11139&version=18639
>
> There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&pid=11139&status=1
>
> ** Note: W
Am 11/11/12 05:58, schrieb Jason van Zyl:
> I have more cycles now, so I'd like to propose a tentative release schedule
> for the core and get some changes pushed out.
>
> 3.1.0 Release
>
> I'd like to finish the following and then do a 3.1.0 release. I don't think
> these changes should be con
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Jesse McConnell
wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Anders Hammar wrote:
>> Here's my suggestion:
>>
>> We keep the current state where we have the new logging API (slf4j) and the
>> System.out style implementation. Then we (Olivier?) create a JIRA ticket
>>
And then there is the whole eating your own dog food aspect of
choosing a logging framework. We've made some significant progress
over at log4j 2.0 and we are days from a beta3 release. It would be
nice to hear how we could further improve 2.0 to whet Maven's logging
appetite.
Gary
On Nov 11, 201
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Anders Hammar wrote:
> Here's my suggestion:
>
> We keep the current state where we have the new logging API (slf4j) and the
> System.out style implementation. Then we (Olivier?) create a JIRA ticket
> for moving to a different logging implementation using a more f
IMHO, this doesn't sound really risky feature, so I don't see any reason why
not to include it in the next version
Regards,
Hervé
Le dimanche 11 novembre 2012 13:19:01 Anders Hammar a écrit :
> If I speed things up on MNG-5356, would anyone object to get that into
> 3.1.0 as well?
>
> /Anders
yes, the question of which slf4j implementation we should use in Maven is a
different question from how to manage progress display during transfert.
And I like
> My goal was to
> introduce SLF4J in a minimal way, at least to start.
more than what I read previously, which gave me bad feeling witho
Here's my suggestion:
We keep the current state where we have the new logging API (slf4j) and the
System.out style implementation. Then we (Olivier?) create a JIRA ticket
for moving to a different logging implementation using a more flexible
logging framework. Then we discuss the benefits of doing
What I proposed is just tentative, I'm in no dire rush and with the logging
discussion firing up again I think you'll have time :-) But it would be nice to
have that in.
On Nov 11, 2012, at 7:19 AM, Anders Hammar wrote:
> If I speed things up on MNG-5356, would anyone object to get that into
>
If I speed things up on MNG-5356, would anyone object to get that into
3.1.0 as well?
/Anders
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> I have more cycles now, so I'd like to propose a tentative release
> schedule for the core and get some changes pushed out.
>
> 3.1.0 Release
>
On Nov 11, 2012, at 2:49 AM, Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
> Perso I propose a change by pointing you (you means other maven dev
> folks too) to a branch I made somewhere but you commit code without
> listening POV from others.
> If you could wait to hear what other thinks that could be lovely
I b
18 matches
Mail list logo
