Github user jvanzyl commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/94
Please do not change an existing test. The conditions under which this IT
passes should be left as-is and should continue running as it is in exactly the
form it runs now. Making purely additional
Github user jvanzyl commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/81
How are the ITs looking now? I know there were a few issues with the output
not matching slf4j-simple that you were trying to sort out.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/80#issuecomment-220492182
How do you plan on using this feature?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/70#issuecomment-183894970
I suggest looking at more recent integration tests which are similar to
yours where there is a default implementation and new implementations can be
used. Take a look
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/70#issuecomment-180506499
Not critical, I can add the annotations later. More important are
integration tests if you haven't started those yet. If you have, great!
---
If your project is set up
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/70#issuecomment-174668942
For a feature like that there should be an integration test as well.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/70#issuecomment-174664828
If there are integration tests don't wait for me.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/pull/13#issuecomment-170241627
Once all the files are in the bootstrap that you might need I've never had
an issue. I'll double check on Monday, but last week I ran the ITs
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/64#issuecomment-169312032
No problem, many of us were on holiday and we'll sort it out eventually.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/77#issuecomment-169376675
@michael-o +1, thanks very much!
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/74#issuecomment-168565897
POM property, CLI property override, or we might want to start collecting
these provisional changes in a special maven plugin configuration section for
activating
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/74#issuecomment-168534190
General rule of thumb is that a change in resolution will definitely not go
in if it changes the default behaviour within a minor version. First smoke test
is making sure
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/64#issuecomment-166335655
Also, is there a corresponding integration test? I will be offline for the
most part over the next two weeks. I'm working on a Maven 4.x branch that
touches almost
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/71#issuecomment-163965483
@nitram509 while i'm in California meeting up is a bit tough, but I will be
back in Toronto tomorrow and then I'll email you and we'll figure out a time.
---
If your
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/71#issuecomment-163962240
@michael-o the model change will be all right provided the reader ignores
fields it doesn't understand. So newer versions that understand the change can
deal
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/71#issuecomment-163790796
I suggested the link on how to make comments so you would adjust them.
Nothing is easy to read with the way they currently are. For example, I'm not
sure why you
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/71#issuecomment-163810810
If you're around tomorrow I can spare an hour if you want to work together
in a hangout to try and get this merged. It's a good feature, I just have some
questions and we
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/70#issuecomment-160451976
We're looking at the new year for the next core release so you have time. I
might have my JSR330 changes done by then. I have 15 super nasty uses of Plexus
to get around
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/70#issuecomment-159774014
@barthel I mean using the JSR330 equivalents for @Component and
@Requirement. For @Component we replace them with @Named and @Singleton used
together at the class level
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/70#issuecomment-159774308
@barthel I ask this to be done because with some recent changes in Sisu I
actually have a chance to land my JSR330 branch which entirely removes Plexus
from Maven
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/70#issuecomment-159585971
Just looking through here and you also switch these to use JSR330
annotations instead of the plexus annotations. Any additions I'd like to see
use JSR330 which is what we
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/64#issuecomment-159242816
No problem, the 3.3.10 release took so much longer than expected so
everyone's schedules got thrown off. Either @michael-o or myself will look at
it when you're ready
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/72#issuecomment-158483928
I have some code that touches a lot of this so I'd like to apply that
first. Also what's the performance difference you observe?
---
If your project is set up
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/71#issuecomment-152828665
Looking through the changes, definitely useful. Just a suggestion for your
for your Git commit messages:
http://tbaggery.com/2008/04/19/a-note-about-git-commit
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/70#issuecomment-151499565
Then I donât see an issue with merging it.
> On Oct 27, 2015, at 4:38 AM, barthel <notificati...@github.com> wrote:
>
> The default
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/68#issuecomment-148531172
Squash it please.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/64#issuecomment-142240976
Generally the changes need to be squashed into a single commit and for
changes to core you need a corresponding integration test. The integration
tests can be found here
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/58#issuecomment-140046053
@fbricon, @dsyer's logic was also integrated into the Maven Wrapper. I'll
release the Maven Wrapper today with that fix.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/52#issuecomment-139676001
This no longer applies against master.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/49#issuecomment-139683514
@brianstclair ping
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/64#issuecomment-139687217
Please squash your commits into a single commit.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/51#issuecomment-138295450
No. The enforcer plugin is for build-time enforcement. The
element is for runtime enforcement. We certainly don't want to have to inspect
the any plugin configuration
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/51#issuecomment-138297887
I'm reasonably sure it's never been used for build-time enforcement.
Anything to make it clear that the enforcer is for build-time and the
prerequisite element
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/51#issuecomment-138307685
Fair enough, I cannot remember that far back :-)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/60#issuecomment-124129817
I'm out in the middle of nowhere, but i'll cancel the vote, test and
re-roll once I'm back to civilization.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/57#issuecomment-120428315
And so what strategy are you going to implement? I realized you've made it
a strategy but that doesn't negate potential for problematic issues. I'm just
trying
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/56#issuecomment-120199784
I'm generally against changing anything to do with resolving strategies and
it has the potential for breaking everything because it's not just what you
might use
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/46#issuecomment-114211764
@agudian think you might be able to validate this? And close out MNG-5812.
Sorry, you're the go-to Windows committer :-)
---
If your project is set up for it, you can
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/46#issuecomment-114224088
Thanks!
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/53#issuecomment-113755269
@sugartxy looks like @krosenvold is doing some JDK7 work so I'll let him
merge this.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/53#issuecomment-113505944
+1 please use try-with-resources
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/45#issuecomment-97413566
To be clear are you saying that the injection of loggers is not supported
with Guice 4? I don't think it's used much but I believe it is used. Yes, I
have been using
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/45#issuecomment-97418800
Thanks for the clarification. I'm not too concerned about not being able to
@Inject SLFJ loggers any longer but we can't break components that might be
doing
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/45#issuecomment-97274498
Would be a nice change. Anything of note we should be concerned about
API/SPI, or performance wise?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/44#issuecomment-97120279
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-5813
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/43#issuecomment-96789423
Applied on d8ae13fd7b6be8a238a2b74f2b494668cd967c30. If it looks good then
close out this issue along with the IT PR.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/40#issuecomment-89769509
I'll take a look at try to incorporate into the 3.3.2 release which I'd
like to get our next week.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/32#issuecomment-78283012
No, and I would not advocate the use of tools like that which would distort
the standard lifecycle and promote tools like Jacoco that do not require things
like
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/32#issuecomment-78341680
And I have been talking about this for years but have admittedly done
nothing yet. But I believe the direction to go is to make some example data
generators that can
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/32#issuecomment-78277642
@ChristianSchulte Definitely more along the lines of what you describe
where there is no site lifecycle. I think this is a design error in allowing
non-build lifecycles
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/32#issuecomment-78013185
I chatted with Igor and he's going to try and change the way the classpath
is constructed for plugins. The issue here appears to be forking where SLF4J is
filtered out
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/32#issuecomment-75961215
The behaviour you describe you need is wrong and the I'm convinced at this
point that the site plugin should just be a stand-alone tool and was
implemented incorrectly
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/32#issuecomment-76013680
The crux of my argument is that Maven should not be doing anything other
than building, non build lifecycles were a mistake and have done nothing but
make the core more
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/32#issuecomment-76101706
There's nothing wrong with there being a site plugin, configuration for the
a site housed within the site plugin and running the site plugin. What is not
right is how
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/32#issuecomment-75814137
I thought we agreed you were closing this pull request.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/32#issuecomment-75814030
No, I don't think it's a good idea to be honest.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/38#issuecomment-75373555
Committed. If it looks good to you close the pull request.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/37#issuecomment-75374322
I think this is reasonable, it should fail instead as it's incorrect.
Anyone have an issue merging this. All the ITs pass here so if there are no
objections today I'll
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/34#issuecomment-68680709
Tibor,
Empirically on the daily basis I work on a 900 module build using 8 threads
with 1500+ developers and there aren't many concurrency issues. I'm not keen
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/34#issuecomment-68700367
Apache is resource constrained so we have what we have. Please feel free to
work with Stephen on the dev list to have something better setup. I'm open to
improvement
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/34#issuecomment-68701512
Does the patch apply for you? I just tried:
Applying: Improved visibility of collections and variables across multiple
threads
error: patch failed:
maven-core
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/34#issuecomment-68705017
Sounds like a plan.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/34#issuecomment-68555131
As a check did you run the ITs? There are a few collections that are
expected to be mutable unfortunately. I haven't looked at the patch in detail
to check but I can look
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/34#issuecomment-68562504
Ant build? The ITs are in a separate repository. This may be helpful:
http://takari.io/2014/06/01/contributing-to-maven-core.html
There are are 700
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/34#issuecomment-68426777
Much of the shitiness stems from leaving things in such a way that nothing
was broken between Maven 2.x and 3.x. There are many weird interactions but the
overriding goal
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/32#issuecomment-67614958
Can you explain why this is needed?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/32#issuecomment-67621964
I'm not really in favour of this change. This seems entirely wrong to
change the way resolution works for the site plugin.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/32#issuecomment-67625232
I don't agree. Why would you not want to build the site from the sources
for the tag of the release you're building?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/32#issuecomment-67625959
Maybe jump in IRC, probably easier to chat.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/32#issuecomment-67625978
irc.codehaus.org #maven-dev
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/28#issuecomment-63176060
@martin-g does the quiet option provide the behaviour you'd like?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/22#issuecomment-49513709
This went in on d8fd65a3aefedfb69c4a70c5710bb163940a3d0a. Can you close the
pull request please? I keep forgetting to do it with the commit message.
---
If your project
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/23#issuecomment-49457637
Awesome! Thanks for looking into this, I'll review tonight and produce a
build. I'll reach out Arnaud when I have the build and he can validate against
the Exo build
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/20#issuecomment-46555048
I think Christian's idea is better as the logic is contained to the
specific activator. I'm not keen at all to add conditional logic to the POM
model anywhere, or any type
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/20#issuecomment-46562788
@mikebrock Do you think MVEL would be suitable for a one expression
evaluator for a Maven profile activator? Imagine putting a MavenProject/pom.xml
in the MVEL context
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/22#issuecomment-46299917
They should all be passing. Happy to help you once I cut the 3.2.2 release.
Also, if you happen to use Eclipse I can show you how to do this all from
within Eclipse which
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/22#issuecomment-46200202
You may want to try running the script described in here just to make sure
the Maven ITs are not affected by the change. We have several ITs that
specifically look at log
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/22#issuecomment-46256490
I will push this in right after I cut the 3.2.2.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/21#issuecomment-46114965
No, we do not use install on this particular project where we are
developing the concept of a generation. We either have a project in source form
locally, or we get
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/21#issuecomment-45966467
Most excellent, thank you. Do you think you might also try your hand at
creating an integration test and trying to assert the change doesn't break
anything else in Maven
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/20#issuecomment-45731097
What's the link you used for reference?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/20#issuecomment-45731568
Yes, that is the Sonatype book which is the de facto reference for Maven
but not the official specification but probably as close to one as we have. The
actual
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/20#issuecomment-45732464
Yes, that's not uncommon. The PR is fine, just waiting for any feedback on
the Maven dev list. There is one IT I would disable going forward (which tests
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/20#issuecomment-45744828
Ok, I've written an integration test and I'll see what falls out on the
Maven dev list today.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/20#issuecomment-45811451
This change will actually make it match the book.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/20#issuecomment-45820916
@Konstantin, I've applied your patch and pushed the integration test. Try
it out and if it's good then close the pull request.
---
If your project is set up for it, you
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/18#issuecomment-45608955
Patch applied, thanks.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/17#issuecomment-45609304
Accompanying Maven IT can be found here:
https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/pull/4
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/18#issuecomment-45641594
Can you close your pull request.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/17#issuecomment-45641645
Patch applied, thanks. Can you close your pull request please.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/16#issuecomment-45644286
Sorry, cut and paste error on my part when closing the other issues. Can
you reopen the PR again and I'll process it this afternoon.
---
If your project is set up
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/16#issuecomment-45673757
I'm looking for a way to make this work, but this breaks MNG-3106 where the
current behaviour is to OR the activators. I agree there are cases where AND is
preferable
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/20#issuecomment-45681556
I have argued on the Maven dev list to process your patch. The current
implementation I believe to be incorrect.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/16#issuecomment-45442939
Tonight I'll try to process all the outstanding PRs. I'll let you know if I
need anything.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/19#issuecomment-45084215
-1. This will not be pulled into the core. We need to go the other
direction and take these specific packaging types out of the core. Using a
plugin declaration
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/16#issuecomment-45138360
Cool, I'll take a look at look at the specific IT failure.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/18#issuecomment-44829347
Cool, now you just need a test :-) I would look at one of Igor's related
ITs. Some of the most recent ITs that have been added.
---
If your project is set up for it, you
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/18#issuecomment-44840927
Awesome, thanks.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/17#issuecomment-44885391
Passes unit and integration tests as per
https://gist.github.com/jvanzyl/16da25976f8ad27293fa
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have
Github user jvanzyl commented on the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/16#issuecomment-44797771
I created a simple shell script to help validate a pull request against the
Maven integration tests. This script is not great, and running the Maven
integration tests
1 - 100 of 1777 matches
Mail list logo
