interactive part is skipped and code falls back to defaults.
> >>> If there are issues, they're more much likely to happen in the
> interactive mode.
> >>> Maybe a more reasonable solution is to use server="n" (default) for
> batch mode, server="y" for interac
So now I cannot debug Maven issues that happen when running in batch mode?
We should document that specific case uses MAVEN_OPTS
On Tue 27 Jul 2021 at 16:01, Michael Osipov wrote:
> So you say that -B will implicitly disable --debug without any further
> notice?
>
> I logically agree that batch
3.8.1 as we already burned and accidentally released 3.8.0
Though if we could go back in time to before the vote was started, it
should have been 3.6.4 IMO... but since the release manager went with
3.8.0, that’s the train we’re on
FTR the release manager’s decision on version number has always
So there’s a setting for the repo which allows controlling whether to
deploy plain snapshot or timestamp snapshots
https://maven.apache.org/pom.html#repository
Specifically `uniqueVersion`
IIRC there was a deliberate break of that to always be true in Maven 3.0.x
for reasons that only Benjamin
On Mon 6 Jul 2020 at 17:48, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> Le lundi 6 juillet 2020, 11:33:05 CEST Mark Derricutt a écrit :
> > Hervé,
> >
> > If you configure IntelliJ (projecting much Mark?) to use Maven
> > 3.7.0-SNAPSHOT as it’s maven version, does that work?
> keeping internal Maven version was
On Sat 4 Jul 2020 at 16:54, Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> Le sam. 4 juil. 2020 à 16:38, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> > On Sat 4 Jul 2020 at 10:21, Romain Manni-Bucau
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Well, there are two points I
On Sat 4 Jul 2020 at 10:21, Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> Well, there are two points I'd like to emphasis:
>
> 1. I dont think we should wait for 2 majors to get that as a feature, would
> be too late IMHO
Well does my dynamic phases PR do what you need?
> 2. Pom model is based on inheritance
Infra changed the hostname and url to subscribe to so the plugin is being
updated... until then you’re relying on polling every 8h or something like
that
On Thu 12 Mar 2020 at 20:37, Elliotte Rusty Harold
wrote:
> Thanks. It did eventually kick off, but it certainly wasn't immediate,
> more
On Mon 23 Dec 2019 at 15:44, Benjamin Marwell wrote:
> Furthermore,
>
> if we do not drop using that method, maven will throw an exception. Maven
> will, not checkstyle.
>
> I do not think that should be happening (from a user perspective).
>
> It's an easy fix for maven. As soon as the
Nope on PMC quorum, but here’s my +1 to make it legal
On Sat 21 Dec 2019 at 14:19, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The vote has passed with the following result:
>
> +1 : Karl Heinz Marbaise, Mark Struberg, Hervé Boutemy
>
> PMC quorum reached
>
> I will promote the artifacts to the central
On Tue 17 Dec 2019 at 08:14, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> I forgot to mention:
> notice that thanks to maven-release-plugin 3.0.0-M1, the
> project.build.outputTimestamp property was automatically updated 2 times
> during the release:
> - [1] during the release preparation phase
> - [2] when preparing
tems AIUI
>
> thanks,
> Robert
> On 12-12-2019 15:20:24, Stephen Connolly
> wrote:
> On Mon 9 Dec 2019 at 20:53, Elliotte Rusty Harold
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 3:18 PM Michael Osipov wrote:
> > >
> > > Am 2019-12-08 um
On Mon 9 Dec 2019 at 20:53, Elliotte Rusty Harold
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 3:18 PM Michael Osipov wrote:
> >
> > Am 2019-12-08 um 18:08 schrieb Elliotte Rusty Harold:
> > > Please don't. There are certainly some real and important issues in
> > > there. More importantly, users spent a
* Works on the projects I tested against
* Commits look to either be "obvious to one skilled in the art" /
"sufficiently small" / "from somebody with an CLA on file" / "from someone
who has demonstrated intent to have the change licensed under Apache
License"
* NOTICE looks correct to me
+1
On
[Help 1]
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/MavenExecutionException
Much nicer!
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 at 16:12, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have advanced the PoC a bit more by adding an experiments mechanism.
>
> To use the dynamic
on on all lifecycles, so if you did something in after:clean
enforcer wouldn't have run)
-Stephen
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 at 21:16, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri 15 Nov 2019 at 15:18, Robert Scholte wrote:
>
>> I have to admit that when
hacks. Adding the ability to
define phase execution guarantees... that’s where we want to go. Adding the
ability to control plugin execution order within phases... that’s where we
want to go... is the syntax where we want to go? Probably not, but it’s how
we can get there
>
>
> On 15-11-2019 11:
On Fri 15 Nov 2019 at 09:18, Robert Scholte wrote:
> On 13-11-2019 21:46:04, Stephen Connolly
> wrote:
> On Wed 13 Nov 2019 at 19:29, Robert Scholte wrote:
>
> > The name of the branch contains MNG-5668, but it contains much more.
> > I'd likely lead to comments lik
lows us to tidy up the
schema as long as it has a 1:1 mapping to a 4.0.0 modelVersion that gets
deployed.
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>
> On 12-11-2019 10:25:42, Stephen Connolly
> wrote:
> On Tue 12 Nov 2019 at 07:34, Robert Scholte wrote:
>
> > This is not just MNG
; there are other issues more important.
>
> My biggest fear is that this will result in an All-Or-Nothing, and I like
> to prevent that. If the try-finally part works as expected we can extract
> that part and prepare for one of the next Maven releases.
>
> Robert
>
>
>
, 13 Nov 2019 at 13:44, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the fundamental problem here is that we (i.e. maven developers) do
> not have a shared understanding of how we want to use version numbers.
>
> There are a group of people who want to use s
I think the fundamental problem here is that we (i.e. maven developers) do
not have a shared understanding of how we want to use version numbers.
There are a group of people who want to use semantic versioning such that
the major version is only incremented for "breaking" changes, minor version
ey are all touching the same code.
Once we get feedback we can decide where we want to go from there.
>
> Robert
> On 11-11-2019 20:31:44, Stephen Connolly
> wrote:
> https://github.com/apache/maven/tree/mng-5668-poc is my POC implementation
> for anyone interested in tryin
thoughts: consider a developer that wants to run up until
> pre-integration-test, because he wants to bring his system in a certain
> state so he can work with IDE to do some work.Can we say that If And Only
> If somebody called the pre-PHASE, there's no reason to end with the
> post-PHASE?
>
&
nt on any version less than or
> equal to 1.0 than or greater than
> or equal to 1.2, but not 1.1. Multiple requirements are comma-separated
>
> * <<<(,1.1),(1.1,)>>>: Soft requirement on any version except 1.1;
> for example because
> it is known not to have
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 22:16, Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> Le mar. 29 oct. 2019 à 22:58, Karl Heinz Marbaise a
> écrit :
>
> > Hi Romain,
> >
> > On 29.10.19 22:40, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote:
> > > Hi Karl
> > >
> > > Not sure id do a MavenIT annotation - test is enough probably - but i
> > >
of these images with
> the cache. And the technical solution is smaller problem I would say.
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:28 AM Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed 30 Oct 2019 at 08:21, Tibor Digana
> wrote:
> >
> > > It's t
On Wed 30 Oct 2019 at 08:21, Tibor Digana wrote:
> It's the situation when you have maven plugins in repo and it means that
> all custom plugins/deps can be still downloaded as before.
> Nothing exists like this in the world and we are talking about the
> approaches.
>
Cough cough cough
+1
On Tue 29 Oct 2019 at 20:11, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
> Hi to all,
>
> based on the discusion this is the formal VOTE to lift the minimum of
> Maven Core with version 3.7.0 to JDK 8 minimum.
>
> Vote open for at least 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>
>
> Kind regards
> Karl Heinz
hat sound like a plan? I'd be happy with that. I'd also expect
> an announcement on dev@, announce@ and users@.
>
> Michael
>
> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Oktober 2019 um 13:49 Uhr
> > Von: "Stephen Connolly"
> > An: "Maven Developers List"
>
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 12:49, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 12:47, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We already have a version policy:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/di
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 12:47, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We already have a version policy:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Version+number+policy
>
(while that page says draft, the proposal was on-list in 2014 and just
conver
these things. The only problem that I have and
> Michael has is the way how this is managed but it is the only trivial
> problem that we can solve between us.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 1:04 PM Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
&g
policy would be forced
to Java 8 as minimum anyway in other words, our users should be
expecting us to go Java 8 as baseline.
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 10:28, Tibor Digana wrote:
> Stephen, what issue with current toolchain you mean?
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 11:11 AM S
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 08:02, Tibor Digana wrote:
> Robert, I saw the code. The class has a method which returns Lambda
> function. The whole class was designed with OOP. The OOP is a good thing
> which you should follow and follow this approach and not to return the
> labda function. Basically
executions to call OR create blocks of executions.
> Now it is just a list of executions: loop and fail fast.
>
> thanks,
> Robert
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5665
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-3522
> On 25-10-2019 21:33:14, Stephen Connolly
the before and after phases to not be directly invoked via CLI or
invoker, and because you cannot have a phase with this name, it’s safe to
reuse
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:13 PM Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri 25 Oct 2019 at 21:41, Ta
. This sounds like a hack. Could we clear that
> part up?
Could you explain what you mean? I’m not seeing what you are saying
>
> T
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 10:23 PM Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
>
> > Le 25/10/2019 à 21:01, Stephen Connolly a écrit :
> > > https:
On Tue 22 Oct 2019 at 11:30, Elliotte Rusty Harold
wrote:
> The docs at
> https://maven.apache.org/pom.html#Dependency_Version_Requirement_Specification
> say:
>
> 1.0: "Soft" requirement on 1.0 (just a recommendation, if it matches
> all other ranges for the dependency)
> [1.0]: "Hard"
Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert, Michael, Tibor, let’s continue here (though I asked Infra and it’s
> fine that anyone in the community can join our Slack)
>
> On Fri 25 Oct 2019 at 20:01, Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmai
Robert, Michael, Tibor, let’s continue here (though I asked Infra and it’s
fine that anyone in the community can join our Slack)
On Fri 25 Oct 2019 at 20:01, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Dynamic+phases
>
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/Dynamic+phases
Thoughts?
--
Sent from my phone
On Sat 5 Oct 2019 at 08:14, Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> I like the words but fail to see the missing pieces (understand actions to
> do).
>
> Typically today when i release at work i use release plugin enriched with
> github page deployment for the doc using antora + a ftp update of my server
>
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 12:39, Aleksandar Kurtakov
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 2:22 PM Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 12:03, Michael Osipov wrote:
> > > I also won't participate in any further in-de
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 12:03, Michael Osipov wrote:
> Am 2019-09-28 um 14:05 schrieb Robert Scholte:
> > Hi,
> >
> > TLDR; introduce maven.experimental.buildconsumer and push Java
> > requirement to Java 8
> >
> > now that Maven 3.6.2 is out for a couple of weeks, it seems like we
> > didn't face
gt; > + limitations and solutions for disadvantages
> > + conditions when and how to migrate from J7 to J8
> >
> > and then we should Vote for J8.
> >
> > And there are users who is has J6 and J7 and they may require us to
> > maintain the old version 3.6.x.
>
ment...
> >
> > Why hadn't started Google to update their environment over the time
> to
> > JDK 8 etc. (I think they have much more resources than anyone).
> >
> >
> > One more thing is:
> >There is a difference between running Maven to bu
+1 on Java 8 requirement for Maven runtime (note this still lets you
compile with Java 7 if you are prepared to use toolchains... the complexity
of using toolchains is an argument for improving/revisiting toolchains)
+1 on getting the place for filtering the pom.xml to produce the consumer
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 13:36, Mickael Istria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:37 AM Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > however
> > because of architectural history, Eclipse (last time I checked... some
> > years ag
Tibor,
If one is ranking correctness of integration with Maven of the various IDEs
then IntelliJ is not the "gold standard".
There are two *major* bugs in how IntelliJ handles Maven projects:
1. It does not allow different Java versions for test versus main trees:
+1
On Fri 7 Jun 2019 at 13:22, Robert Scholte wrote:
> Looking for a second approval
>
> Issue: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6665 [
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6665]
> PR: https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/251 (I'll merge the commits)
> Jenkins result:
>
+1
On Fri 7 Jun 2019 at 14:32, Robert Scholte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Apache Maven project consist of about 90 (sub)projects. Due to the
> small number of volunteers and the huge amount of code to maintain we're
> missing enough space to make real progress on all these projects, including
> our
Merged
On Sun 2 Jun 2019 at 11:44, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I’m going to add a test where the “newer” pom has an incompatible schema
> with only modelVersion retained to ensure the parser errors get dismissed
> and we bomb early with the modelVe
I’m going to add a test where the “newer” pom has an incompatible schema
with only modelVersion retained to ensure the parser errors get dismissed
and we bomb early with the modelVersion complaint
On Sat 1 Jun 2019 at 22:05, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
EOL not rolling (autocorrect)
On Sun 2 Jun 2019 at 10:27, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 to Drop. They are rolling
>
> On Sun 2 Jun 2019 at 09:42, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> To me it is not clear if we should keep te
+1 to Drop. They are rolling
On Sun 2 Jun 2019 at 09:42, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hi,
> To me it is not clear if we should keep tests against java 9 and java 10.
>
> I think it is mostly a waste of resources and time.
>
> Do we have a clear and documented statement about which versions are
>
rg/eclipse/aether/util/version/GenericVersionScheme.html
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 01 Jun 2019 14:48:00 +0200, Stephen Connolly
> wrote:
>
> > CI passed:
> > https://builds.apache.org/job/maven-box/job/maven/job/mng-6667/1/
> >
> > On Sat 1 Jun 2019 at 13:01, Stephen Connolly <
&g
CI passed:
https://builds.apache.org/job/maven-box/job/maven/job/mng-6667/1/
On Sat 1 Jun 2019 at 13:01, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Finally got some time to do some work on Maven again... who knows how long
> it will last!!!
>
> https://issu
Finally got some time to do some work on Maven again... who knows how long
it will last!!!
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6667
https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=commit;h=7376a99093984c459f6a70cd1f508bbcf5ef26f7
WDYT?
If CI passes are we good to merge?
-Stephen
+1
On Tue 28 May 2019 at 19:54, Robert Scholte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Apache Maven project consist of about 100 (sub)projects. Due to the
> small number of volunteers and the huge amount of code to maintain we're
> missing enough space to make real progress on all these projects, including
> our
On Sun 21 Apr 2019 at 16:24, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hi,
> I want to commit this breaking change [1] in checkstyle plugin,
> that is the upgrade [2] to latest checkstyle (8.x) and thus the making
> Java 8 the minimum version for the plugin.
>
> Currently I have 3.0.1-SNAPSHOT on master,
> I
/95401cf7a606daa0982c3fe5a5928cd466230995
is
small enough and intent to license is confirmed on PR
All other commits from outside the Maven TLP originate from ASF committers
so CLA is on-file
-S.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 09:33, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
will be cast shortly, some more tests to
complete
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 09:43, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> should I count that as +1 ?
>
> Kind regards
> Karl Heinz Marbaise
> On 09.04.19 10:33, Stephen Connolly wrote:
> > $ target/appassembler/bin/sra
> &
$ target/appassembler/bin/sra
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1496 3.6.1
Analyzer...
stagingUrl: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1496
groupId: org.apache.maven
artifactId: apache-maven
version: 3.6.1
Source ZIP url exists.
You can change the phase the execution is bound to to put it in the
process-classes phase if your rule needs to validate the classes
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 15:43, Elliotte Rusty Harold
wrote:
> Yesterday one of our developers uncovered a major architectural flaw
> in one of our projects. Before
The Maven model of project dependencies is resolved as part of the build
plan because the transitive dependencies could affect the build order.
An example (contrived, but possible).
I have two modules: foo and bar
foo depends on bar
bar depends on a 3rd library that is external to the reactor:
+1
On Wed, 16 Jan 2019 at 12:56, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> An user is asking for a release of the enforcer plugin
>
> https://github.com/apache/maven-enforcer/pull/36#issuecomment-447238729
>
> I can prepare the release
>
> Thoughts?
> Enrico
> --
>
>
> -- Enrico Olivelli
>
de contributor PRs I am agree with
> not owning the risk ;-)
> >>
> >> Stephen Connolly wrote on 2019-01-04 16:06:
> >>
> >> > On Fri 4 Jan 2019 at 22:00, Tibor Digana
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> @Stephen Connolly
> >> &g
false in the executions?
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 16:04, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> initial content published, as a branch in maven-studies [1]
>
> I have a few issues that currently will block any release:
> 1. how to configure release plugin without leaking into future projects
> that
> will
mmended to fix these problems because they
> > > threaten the stability of your build.
> > > [WARNING]
> > > [WARNING] For this reason, future Maven versions might no longer
> > support
> > > building such malformed projects.
> > > [WARNIN
The original plan was to make plugin version mandatory. Perhaps 3.7.0 is
the time to do that, with a CLI option (to be removed after 3.7.x) to pull
in the 3.6.x default versions if your pom is missing plugin versions.
The warning has been there long enough. Let’s pull the trigger.
On Sat 12 Jan
gt; > > branchname should be added to the version.
> > > Call it work in progress for better support.
> > >
> > > thanks,
> > > Robert
> > >
> > > On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 10:50:57 +0100, Stephen Connolly
> > > wrote:
> &
No reason that we cannot call the next release 3.7.0 and include the bump,
mind you
On Thu 10 Jan 2019 at 16:31, Anders Hammar wrote:
> IMHO it shouldn't be done in a patch release, but rather a minor release
> (3.7.0).
>
> /Anders (mobile)
>
> Den tors 10 jan. 2019 17:09 skrev Tibor Digana :
>
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 09:11, Mickael Istria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Eclipse m2e, as a consumer of Maven as a library, would love to see the
> latest HEAD from master published automatically as SNAPSHOTs soon after
> every change is made. This seems like a requirement to enable continuous
> feedback
The question is more what our policy is.
In my opinion you need one of two policies:
* snapshots are deployed manually
* snapshots are deployed automatically from a specific branch
We have used manual as our policy. If we change that’s fine, but we should
stop manual deployment and clarify the
I believe my employer also offers free build services for OSS projects via
our CodeShip offering. If people are concerned about tying PR validation
exclusively to one vendor we should inspect the CloudBees CodeShip
capabilities (includes Docker build agents, which can be very nice...
though I
That is not the problem you think it is. Bitcoin mining is the current
issue. And through Jenkinsfile or Process.exec you can bypass JVM
permissions
On Sun 6 Jan 2019 at 16:44, Tibor Digana wrote:
> Regarding "pull/1234/head" refs and the security, I think allowing only the
> permission to
On Fri 4 Jan 2019 at 22:00, Tibor Digana wrote:
> @Stephen Connolly
> After such a big investment, especially made on your side, in Jenkins
> plugin you developed you do not want to support the GitHub PRs and you just
> let be to go with TravisCI just like that? I do not think
+1 from me
On Fri 4 Jan 2019 at 18:21, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Hi,
> I would like to try out Travis on this small plugin:
> https://github.com/apache/maven-scripting-plugin
>
> I have pushed a minimal configuration file
> I need to ask to Infra, but I need approval from the community and
Then
we can still have #1 and #2 as final pre-merge confirmation... but Travis
gives the contributor immediate feedback on their contribution and that
helps grow the community.
>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 10:19 PM Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
&
ts of PRs from non-committers.
> T
>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 8:39 PM Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu 3 Jan 2019 at 18:03, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> >
> > > Il gio 3 gen 2019, 17:38 Mickael Istria ha
> scr
On Thu 3 Jan 2019 at 18:03, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Il gio 3 gen 2019, 17:38 Mickael Istria ha scritto:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think this discussion is diverging into "trying TravisCI for some
> > plugins" and is loosing focus on the initial question of how to improve
> the
> > build+test flow to
phases are about the user calling out how far they want to go, not about
sequencing... at least once we get a propper execution graph
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 13:54, Romain Manni-Bucau
wrote:
> Currently maven can't but I expect a way to do it, either in the next xsd
> as originally proposed or,
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 at 20:41, Mickael Istria wrote:
> I'mglad to see that PR build/merge discussed, it seems to have a good
> potential value for many in simplifying it.
>
> FWIW, at Eclipse Foundation, similar questions were faced and risks
> identified. The result is that at the moment, all
On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 at 18:56, Vladimir Sitnikov
wrote:
> Stephen> Well on other GitHub orgs i’ve seen PR author has Merge
> button once PR is
> Stephen> approved by someone with push rights to the repo... until
> they add a commit
> Stephen> or the merge result changes
>
> It does not work the
On Sat 29 Dec 2018 at 18:19, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat 29 Dec 2018 at 18:06, Vladimir Sitnikov <
> sitnikov.vladi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Stephen> Nah. Once committers have approved the PR then the PR can be
On Sat 29 Dec 2018 at 18:06, Vladimir Sitnikov
wrote:
> Stephen> Nah. Once committers have approved the PR then the PR can be
> merged by the
> Stephen> creator of the PR even if not a committer... at least that’s
> the default
> Stephen> way GitHub PRs work
>
> By default one needs push rights
On Sat 29 Dec 2018 at 17:16, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Il sab 29 dic 2018, 17:25 Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>
> ha scritto:
>
> > On Sat 29 Dec 2018 at 16:20, Stephen Connolly <
> > stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
On Sat 29 Dec 2018 at 16:20, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat 29 Dec 2018 at 15:18, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
>
>> Il sab 29 dic 2018, 15:17 Stephen Connolly <
>> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>
>> ha scritto:
>&
On Sat 29 Dec 2018 at 15:18, Enrico Olivelli wrote:
> Il sab 29 dic 2018, 15:17 Stephen Connolly <
> stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com>
> ha scritto:
>
> > There is a security issue with building PRs automatically.
> >
> > I can see about adding PR discove
There is a security issue with building PRs automatically.
I can see about adding PR discovery to the existing ASF gitbox plugin, but
we’d need committers to ok the build and have reviewed the code as the PR
could contain attacks to be run from ASF hardware... which is why we don’t
build PRs at
On Sun 23 Dec 2018 at 11:32, Michael Osipov wrote:
> Am 2018-12-23 um 11:14 schrieb Stephen Connolly:
> > Over the break I *may* get some time to work on the tooling improvements
> > that Robert, Hervé and I identified for the jump to 4.0.0 (namely a
> better
> >
Over the break I *may* get some time to work on the tooling improvements
that Robert, Hervé and I identified for the jump to 4.0.0 (namely a better
way to ensure api binary compatibility for the APIs that core exposes to
plugins)
If I do get a chance to work on this, it’ll be in a branch until we
Welcome!
On Fri 14 Dec 2018 at 21:07, Robert Scholte wrote:
> The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache Maven
> has invited Enrico Olivelli to become a committer and
> we are pleased to announce that he has accepted.
>
> Being a committer enables easier contribution to the
> project
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 11:57, Mirko Friedenhagen
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> # Preambel
> * I just opened a PR at Homebrew[0], a package manager for macOS, to
> update Maven to 3.6.0.
> * First thing was, the Download page[1] still states 3.5.4 as latest and
> greatest, which is a bit confusing given the
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 11:42, Karl Heinz Marbaise wrote:
> Hi Mirko,
>
> of course not, cause I haven't written the announcement yet..
>
> I'm currently preparing the release notes (just published a few minutes
> ago)..
>
> Afterwards I will check the pages etc..and afterwards I will do the
>
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 11:41, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yep, there is a bunch of steps after the vote and it usually took me a day
> or two for to wait for the mirrors to sync, which is a blocker for calling
> the release available.
>
> Thi
yep, there is a bunch of steps after the vote and it usually took me a day
or two for to wait for the mirrors to sync, which is a blocker for calling
the release available.
This is Karl's first run as release manager
Patience is a virtue!
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 11:26, Mirko Friedenhagen
wrote:
Source distribution builds: Check
Source contributions have ICLAs; have clear intent to commit; or are
sufficiently trivial: Check
Tried some of my more interesting projects: Check
+1 (binding)
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018 at 21:16, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
$ target/appassembler/bin/sra
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1459 3.6.0
Analyzer...
stagingUrl: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1459
groupId: org.apache.maven
artifactId: apache-maven
version: 3.6.0
Source ZIP url exists.
1 - 100 of 2701 matches
Mail list logo
