+1
On May 31, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Kristian Rosenvold
kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
We solved 3
issues:https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12332381styleName=TextprojectId=12317220
This release fixes a somewhat nasty regression in 2.5.4 when
Mirko; I was thinking one stage, vote one for everything. But I realized
what I just want is for combined releases to work so we can have a safe
process that releases shared code and plugins in the same release. Right
now we have to break the build to to that.
K
2015-05-31 20:24 GMT+02:00 Mirko
Hi,
We solved 3
issues:https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=12332381styleName=TextprojectId=12317220
This release fixes a somewhat nasty regression in 2.5.4 when creating
jar files. Still 2.2.1 jdk 1.5 compatible.
There are still a couple of issues left in
Hi Kristian,
checked SHA1 Ok.
Checked with Maven 2.2.1, 3.0.5, 3.2.5, 3.3.3
without any issue...
so +1 from me...
on the generated site has a little problem:
http://maven.apache.org/plugins-archives/maven-assembly-plugin-LATEST/
The list of xsd's is a little bit screwed upbut this will
GitHub user Tibor17 opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/95
[SUREFIRE-1158] Remove console println of TestNG configurator
Some refactoring and implementation for this issue.
These lines are printed with debug (mvn -X) or show-errors (mvn -e):
I'll re-publish the site tonight (vote stays open).
Kristian
2015-05-31 21:42 GMT+02:00 Karl Heinz Marbaise khmarba...@gmx.de:
Hi Kristian,
checked SHA1 Ok.
Checked with Maven 2.2.1, 3.0.5, 3.2.5, 3.3.3
without any issue...
so +1 from me...
on the generated site has a little problem:
Hello Kristian,
sorry for asking, could you be more specific:
- Should they all go to a common staging repository, so testing them
together is easier.
- Should there only be one vote process?
What does combined mean for you here?
Regards
Mirko
--
Sent from my mobile
Am 31.05.2015 10:38 schrieb
+1 for Jason's procedure.
Regards
Mirko
--
Sent from my mobile
Am 30.05.2015 17:18 schrieb Jason van Zyl ja...@takari.io:
If they have truly separate development cycles, then I think it best to
try and move toward meaningful (semantic) versioning for each component.
Which means they have
Great, thanks Baptiste.
On May 31, 2015, at 4:36 AM, Baptiste Mathus bmat...@batmat.net wrote:
See https://github.com/mojohaus/convert-to-git for MojoHaus (previously
Mojo@Codehaus).
Though a bit rough a the main script being a bit oriented towards the Mojo
SVN, it has no real
Beware that using the diff format, you're gonna lose the commit information
(author, committer...). With SVN you don't have any other choice, but with
Git it would be a waste IMO.
Cheers
2015-05-29 13:29 GMT+02:00 Tamas Cservenak ta...@cservenak.net:
Sry, I sent the “resolved” URL, here is the
Oh well, I suppose what I /really/ want to fix is making combined releases
work.
K
2015-05-31 10:05 GMT+02:00 Mirko Friedenhagen mfriedenha...@gmail.com:
+1 for Jason's procedure.
Regards
Mirko
--
Sent from my mobile
Am 30.05.2015 17:18 schrieb Jason van Zyl ja...@takari.io:
If they
if you look at shared content, there is so much diversity that it would not
make sense to release everything with 1 version
http://maven.apache.org/shared/index.html
there is also the special maven-reporting-api case where this would wreck
havoc
we'll need to find another idea
Regards,
Hervé
See https://github.com/mojohaus/convert-to-git for MojoHaus (previously
Mojo@Codehaus).
Though a bit rough a the main script being a bit oriented towards the Mojo
SVN, it has no real specificities wrt SVN-Git migration, so it should be
at least a good starting point.
I can privide help, or help
13 matches
Mail list logo
