The vote has passed with the following result:
+1 (binding): Brian, Hervé, Kristian, Mark, Olivier
-0,5 (binding):Stephen
I will continue release process.
--
Olivier Lamy
Talend: http://coders.talend.com
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
as some may have remarked, our Jenkins jobs configuration has been notably
improved to avoid many false positive
please take care to actual failures reported by the CI server, since it is a
lot more reliable now
Regards,
Hervé
https://builds.apache.org/view/M-R/view/Maven/
-- Messag
+1
--
Olivier
Le 17 janv. 2013 21:17, "Olivier Lamy" a écrit :
> Hi,
> I'd like to release both ASF Parent pom 13 and Maven parent pom 23
>
> ASF Parent pom 13:
> * staging repository:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapacheapache-142/
> * diff with previous release:
>
> h
Le dimanche 20 janvier 2013 05:21:14 Hervé BOUTEMY a écrit :
> So if we change our documentation release process to update a fixed
> "-latest" place and svn copy on release, svnpubsub should be bearable IMHO
need to rephrase
if we change our documentation release process to update a fixed
"-latest
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 12:03:46 +0100
"Robert Scholte" wrote:
> This is the intended behavior.
> For instance, if you change a method signature of a class, only this class
> would be recompiled in the old situation, causing a false positive:
> classes depending on this method should be recompile
Yes, exactly as Robert explained.
Previously to this change we created broken JARs.
People always had to do mvn clean install :/
We will continue working on this area. The goal is that a mvn verify on a
project creates reliable results and only does the work it really needs to do.
Though in ge
This is the intended behavior.
For instance, if you change a method signature of a class, only this class
would be recompiled in the old situation, causing a false positive:
classes depending on this method should be recompiled as well. For that
reason most users run "mvn clean install", whe
On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 11:11:31 +0100
Tony Chemit wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 16:46:09 +0100
> Olivier Lamy wrote:
>
> > 2013/1/19 Tony Chemit :
> > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:17:35 +0100
> > > Olivier Lamy wrote:
> > >
> > > +0.
> > >
> > > m-compiler-p to 3.0 is it a real good idea ?
> > >
> > >
On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 16:46:09 +0100
Olivier Lamy wrote:
> 2013/1/19 Tony Chemit :
> > On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:17:35 +0100
> > Olivier Lamy wrote:
> >
> > +0.
> >
> > m-compiler-p to 3.0 is it a real good idea ?
> >
> > I tried it, and it did not pleased me to recompile all a module each time
> >
