Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

now using the branch name m6078... hopefully that will pull the windows builds under the limit On 21 February 2017 at 16:04, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > Argh! > > [ERROR] Failed to execute goal > org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin:2.17:test

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Argh! [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin:2.17:test (default-test) on project maven-it-plugin-class-loader: Execution default-test of goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin:2.17:test failed: The forked VM terminated without properly saying

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

On 21 February 2017 at 09:35, Tibor Digana wrote: > Stephen, so you avoided the duplicates. > I have questions. > > Is it really necessary to keep duplicates of system properties in > *List** args*? > Is it necessary to pass ordered duplicates to CLI Manager and to rely

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Stephen, so you avoided the duplicates. I have questions. Is it really necessary to keep duplicates of system properties in *List** args*? Is it necessary to pass ordered duplicates to CLI Manager and to rely on CLI Manager to take care of removing duplicates? *CommandLine config =

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

This looks better to me. Thanks, Robert Verzonden vanaf Samsung Mobile. Oorspronkelijk bericht Van: Stephen Connolly <stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> Datum:21-02-2017 01:16 (GMT+01:00) Aan: Maven Developers List <dev@maven.apache.org> Onderwerp: Re: I think

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

After some digging I think the fix for MNG-6078 is incorrect. I have taken an initial stab at what I believe to be a more correct approach: https://github.com/apache/maven/tree/mng-6078-take-2 If the integration tests pass: https://builds.apache.org/job/maven-3.x-jenkinsfile/job/mng-6078-take-2/

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 02/18/17 um 11:41 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > We need help testing on Solaris 10/11 if anyone has access to such a system On a SPARC machine, if possible, please. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Hi, On 18/02/17 12:19, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: the discussion is not about merging some code from a branch to master: it's about doing an alpha release from master Based on the current state of JIRA for 3.5.0 (all issues closed). I say let us start making a alpha-1 candidate... +1 from me for

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

On Sat 18 Feb 2017 at 11:19, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > the discussion is not about merging some code from a branch to master: it's > about doing an alpha release from master > The current issue with surefire where forked tests will fail on at least FreeBSD - as long as it is

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

the discussion is not about merging some code from a branch to master: it's about doing an alpha release from master then do you have concerns about doing an alpha release from master? or did I miss something? (which branch?) Regards, Hervé Le samedi 18 février 2017, 11:45:17 CET Robert

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Hi Robert, On 17/02/17 17:24, Robert Scholte wrote: Hi Karl Heinz, looking at the commit[1] I see that the projectBuildList.contains will prevent the NPE, but it looks weird to me that the projectBuildList does not contain a mavenProject which was marked as finished so can be built. Why is it

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

For me it is a -1 to merge. It is not a regression compared to 3.3.9, so that issue is not a blocker for me and can be part of a next release. Robert On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 09:29:51 +0100, Tibor Digana wrote: +1: changed previous Vote, I want to see colors in

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

After chatting on IRC I see this surefire issue on at least FreeBSD as a blocker for an alpha. We need help testing on Solaris 10/11 if anyone has access to such a system On Sat 18 Feb 2017 at 09:56, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > If I am cutting an alpha and it

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

If I am cutting an alpha and it contains known issues, we should list them as such on release notes. I'll see what that would look like some time this weekend and categorise as S1: Maven blows up always - no workaround S2: Maven blows up under certain circumstances - no workaround S3: A

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

+1: changed previous Vote, I want to see colors in console, but Karl should explain to Robert's remark that the change was a workaround. If it is Multithreading Memory Model problem, we can find better fix together. But now the contains() method is part of logic and dev will try to see it

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

-1: fix pending bugs, otherwise users will report more bugs For instance Robert said the above fix was a workaround. On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > Would it help yet to cut an alpha and start tracking bugs? > > I am starting to be

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

one question I have on this is: how do we want to track issues in Jira? Do we let 3.5.0 open (with its 65 issues) or do we release it renamed as 3.5.0-alpha-1? Do we create a 3.5.0-alpha-1 version just to mark bugs found in 3.5.0-alpha-1 as "affects version"? Regards, Hervé Le samedi 18

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

if we go with the "alpha-1" road, let's use the benefit: it may have some little issues then +1 to cut alpha-1 now Regards, Hervé Le vendredi 17 février 2017, 18:57:18 CET Arnaud Héritier a écrit : > +1 for to have the cat out of the box !!! > > Le ven. 17 févr. 2017 à 19:19, Stephen

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 02/17/17 um 19:18 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > Would it help yet to cut an alpha and start tracking bugs? > > I am starting to be concerned that the collective of volunteers are on a > death march with no end in site... so I am seeking ways to identify an end > where we can cut 3.5.0 and start

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

+1 for to have the cat out of the box !!! Le ven. 17 févr. 2017 à 19:19, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> a écrit : > Would it help yet to cut an alpha and start tracking bugs? > > I am starting to be concerned that the collective of volunteers are on a > death march with no

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Would it help yet to cut an alpha and start tracking bugs? I am starting to be concerned that the collective of volunteers are on a death march with no end in site... so I am seeking ways to identify an end where we can cut 3.5.0 and start on 3.5.1 I don't want to be here in 2-3 weeks and still

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 2017-02-17 um 18:03 schrieb Arnaud Héritier: Is there someone who tried to deploy a "large" artifact ? I have a bug in 3.5 and not in 3.3.9 but for now no time to dig The project : https://github.com/jenkinsci/maven-plugin Downloading:

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

I would expect this to be a wagon issue. Could you try to replace only these jars? i.e. wagon-*-2.12 back to wagon-*-2.10 as in 3.3.9 Robert On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:03:04 +0100, Arnaud Héritier wrote: Is there someone who tried to deploy a "large" artifact ? I have

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

It happens with ArrayList filled up with objects in writer Thread. Reader will see: size=5, and Object array has all elements null. In such cases I use ConcurrentLinkedQueue, thread-safe impl without using locks - just write once and reads multiple times - or use Guava. Does this happen with this?

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Is there someone who tried to deploy a "large" artifact ? I have a bug in 3.5 and not in 3.3.9 but for now no time to dig The project : https://github.com/jenkinsci/maven-plugin Here are the logs with 3.3.9 Apache Maven 3.3.9 (bb52d8502b132ec0a5a3f4c09453c07478323dc5;

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Hi all, At which line is NPE? [1] looks like multithreading. Is NPE cause due to Java Memory Model? One thread is writer, seconds is reader, and object is not thread-safe (immutable, synchronized either volatile). [1]

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Hi Karl Heinz, looking at the commit[1] I see that the projectBuildList.contains will prevent the NPE, but it looks weird to me that the projectBuildList does not contain a mavenProject which was marked as finished so can be built. Why is it null? If there's no clear reason yet, there

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Hi, I have identified a bug[1] in Maven Core based on an issue related to versions-maven-plugin: I have made already a fix for it and all tests are running[2]. Any objection to merge that issue into master ? Kind regards Karl Heinz Marbaise [1]:

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 02/14/17 um 20:25 schrieb Michael Osipov: > Who seconds MNG-6150 Javadoc improvements for 3.5.0 for FIX-3.5.0? > Functional changes, passes all tests. +1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

We are dumping the std/out because it seems the event "Z,0,BYE!" was missing. I need to confirm the stream. Maybe it will be okay now because I have applied a local patch and sent three Java files to Michael. If this does not help, we will dump received events. It's enough to test with single IT

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 2017-02-14 um 21:52 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise: Hi Michael, On 14/02/17 21:47, Michael Osipov wrote: Am 2017-02-14 um 21:23 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise: Hi, so this looks like the problem is fixed..and maven-clean-plugin is not the culprit ... This isn't related. Surefire722 fails with

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Hi Michael, On 14/02/17 21:47, Michael Osipov wrote: Am 2017-02-14 um 21:23 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise: Hi, so this looks like the problem is fixed..and maven-clean-plugin is not the culprit ... This isn't related. Surefire722 fails with 3.0.0, but works with MCLEAN 2.6.1. I can provide

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 2017-02-14 um 21:23 schrieb Karl Heinz Marbaise: Hi, so this looks like the problem is fixed..and maven-clean-plugin is not the culprit ... This isn't related. Surefire722 fails with 3.0.0, but works with MCLEAN 2.6.1. I can provide log files if you want. On 14/02/17 15:31, Michael

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Hi, so this looks like the problem is fixed..and maven-clean-plugin is not the culprit ... Kind regards Karl Heinz Marbaise On 14/02/17 15:31, Michael Osipov wrote: This test passes flawlessly. Hi Michael, If you will run the build again, this test should not fail. At least I hope so,

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Who seconds MNG-6150 Javadoc improvements for 3.5.0 for FIX-3.5.0? Functional changes, passes all tests. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:

Re: Re: Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Hi Tibor, I am currently running a full test bed with various Maven versions from Surefire master. I will pass you all log files along with the target directory. I'll join the channel at 18:30 Europe/Berlin. Michael > I will be on IRC in hour. > We can talk about the other two tests. > Can

Re: Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

I will be on IRC in hour. We can talk about the other two tests. Can you send me logs from yesterday for CheckTestNgReportTestIT and Surefire772NoSurefireReportsIT ? On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Michael Osipov-3 [via Maven] < ml-node+s40175n5898667...@n5.nabble.com> wrote: > This test passes

Re: Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

This test passes flawlessly. > Hi Michael, > > If you will run the build again, this test should not fail. At least I hope > so, because it's ok on my side >

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Hi Michael, If you will run the build again, this test should not fail. At least I hope so, because it's ok on my side

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 2017-02-13 um 21:36 schrieb Tibor Digana: I am working with Michael on FreeBSD issues. I will try to fix one IT today and I will analyse the logs with next two ITs. Did we change something regarding SITE in Maven 3.5.0-SNAPSHOT ? I was able to tackle the constant failure of

Re: Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

I am working with Michael on FreeBSD issues. I will try to fix one IT today and I will analyse the logs with next two ITs. Did we change something regarding SITE in Maven 3.5.0-SNAPSHOT ? On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Tibor Digana-2 [via Maven] < ml-node+s40175n5898532...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

Re: Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

The HEAD in Surefire has a Jira fix 1322 which is using the same IT which failed on FreeBSD. So I simply included FreeBSD fix in the test Surefire141PluggableProvidersIT. I hope you will be happy with that. The only last IT which fails and I did not have time to investigate is

Re: Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Michael, can you please connect to IRC mvn dev? I would like to discuss regarding FreeBSD. Thx On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> wrote: > I am currently running a patched version of Maven with the offensive > commit reverted against Surefire master on FreeBSD

Re: Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

I will push branch SUREFIRE-1322 which has a fix for freebsd. On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Michael Osipov <1983-01...@gmx.net> wrote: > I am currently running a patched version of Maven with the offensive > commit reverted against Surefire master on FreeBSD 10.3-STABLE. I'll see > wether

Re: Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

I am currently running a patched version of Maven with the offensive commit reverted against Surefire master on FreeBSD 10.3-STABLE. I'll see wether this is the cause in an hour or so. Michael > I’ve logged the change in precedence as > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6172 since

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

I view this as a must fix On 13 February 2017 at 10:34, Stuart McCulloch wrote: > I’ve logged the change in precedence as https://issues.apache.org/ > jira/browse/MNG-6172 since this has the potential to break CI builds > which relied on the previous last-one-wins behaviour >

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

I’ve logged the change in precedence as https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-6172 since this has the potential to break CI builds which relied on the previous last-one-wins behaviour On Monday, 13 February 2017 at 06:54, Tibor Digana wrote: > Exactly this is the problem - forkMode and

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Exactly this is the problem - forkMode and reuseForks in one function. I will open Jira and push a fix. On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Stuart McCulloch [via Maven] < ml-node+s40175n5898461...@n5.nabble.com> wrote: > So I tweaked ForkedLauncher from maven-verifier to dump out the forked >

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

So I tweaked ForkedLauncher from maven-verifier to dump out the forked command to log.txt and at least one of the failing ITs has a duplicated system property on the command-line: mvn -e --batch-mode

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Ironically I got those results the wrong way round when cutting+pasting :) To clarify, when testing mvn -Dmaven.repo.local=/tmp/aaa -Dmaven.repo.local=/tmp/zzz validate with previous Maven releases the last option wins: -Dmaven.repo.local=/tmp/zzz whereas with current master the first option

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Good catch, Stuart, but this would be only valid if we duplicated some system property in two different POMs. This is what I wrote in our private emails: If I use Maven 3.5.0-SNAPSHOT and if I run this command then everything is ok, means one PID:

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Using the following command on a small test project: mvn -Dmaven.repo.local=/tmp/aaa -Dmaven.repo.local=/tmp/zzz validate and checking whether the “aaa” or “zzz” directory is created gives these results for previous Maven releases: 2.0.11 aaa 2.2.1 aaa 3.0.5 aaa 3.1.1 aaa 3.2.5 aaa 3.3.9 aaa

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

git bisect is pointing to the following commit: https://github.com/apache/maven/commit/ca4303031357a7decaee8de770b71fb2c2fedd28 if I revert this change then the wrong PID issue disappears and ForkModeIT passes again I suspect that reversing the whole array of system property definitions, while

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Build has run. Results are: Core ITs ran successfully. Plugin ITs failed. Surefire build failed. Workspaces are here: Apache Maven Remote Resources Plugin ... FAILURE /bin/sh: 1: mvn: not

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 12.02.2017 um 20:54 schrieb Tibor Digana: > There is build process for surefire > https://builds.apache.org/view/Maven/job/maven-master-release-status-test-surefire-linux > with Jenkins file. > This particular build fails with test > > Surefire141PluggableProvidersIT > > It is only one and

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

I never checked different Maven versions or Surefire tags. Only the pre-reset-master branch for a few weeks (3.4.0-SNAPSHOT back then) and now with current Maven master (3.5.0-SNAPSHOT). The only changes to the Maven core which could have an impact to multi-threading behaviour can be some

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

So this is a local build status of surefire running on the top of certain Maven Version. Maven 3.3.9 OK on my side Maven 3.5.0-SNAPSHOT failed. Wrong PIDs, other tests failed on freebsd and not on Win7, so I asked Michael for logs which I do not have. So I am going to investigate. On Sun, Feb 12,

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Can you pop on HipChat with infra? You may need them to grab the files from the agent for you (or modify the Jenkinsfile temporarily to archive the bits you need) On Sun 12 Feb 2017 at 19:55, Tibor Digana wrote: > There is build process for surefire > >

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

There is build process for surefire https://builds.apache.org/view/Maven/job/maven-master-release-status-test-surefire-linux with Jenkins file. This particular build fails with test Surefire141PluggableProvidersIT It is only one and different from your local build result. I asked Stephen to

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

@Stephen: Are there any Jenkins jobs left running the plugin ITs with current Maven master? Surefire has it's own git repository. Do we have some Jenkins job for this as well? It's important to run all those ITs (plugins from subversion and the ones with theire own repository) with what we are

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

This is what happens when building (mvn verify -X -l surefire.log) the 2.19.1 tag with current Maven master. Failed tests: testForkModeOncePerThreadSingleThread(org.apache.maven.surefire.its.ForkModeTestNGIT): pid 1 didn't match pid 2 expected:<[18462]@t60.schulte.it test...> but

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 2017-02-12 um 13:45 schrieb Christian Schulte: Am 02/12/17 um 11:29 schrieb Michael Osipov: Am 2017-02-12 um 06:53 schrieb Tibor Digana: What surefire tag exactly? I know understand what he wants now, use Maven 3.3.9/3.5.0-SNAPSHOT and build 2.12.4 and 2.19.1 (default-bindings.xml) on

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 02/12/17 um 11:29 schrieb Michael Osipov: > Am 2017-02-12 um 06:53 schrieb Tibor Digana: >> What surefire tag exactly? > > I know understand what he wants now, use Maven 3.3.9/3.5.0-SNAPSHOT and > build 2.12.4 and 2.19.1 (default-bindings.xml) on FreeBSD with OpenJDK 7. Yes. Just 2.19.1. Can

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 2017-02-12 um 06:53 schrieb Tibor Digana: What surefire tag exactly? I know understand what he wants now, use Maven 3.3.9/3.5.0-SNAPSHOT and build 2.12.4 and 2.19.1 (default-bindings.xml) on FreeBSD with OpenJDK 7. On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Christian Schulte [via Maven] <

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

What surefire tag exactly? On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 1:56 AM, Christian Schulte [via Maven] < ml-node+s40175n5898195...@n5.nabble.com> wrote: > Am 02/12/17 um 00:59 schrieb Michael Osipov: > > > Am 2017-02-12 um 00:49 schrieb Christian Schulte: > >> Am 02/11/17 um 23:03 schrieb Michael Osipov: >

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 02/12/17 um 00:59 schrieb Michael Osipov: > Am 2017-02-12 um 00:49 schrieb Christian Schulte: >> Am 02/11/17 um 23:03 schrieb Michael Osipov: >>> The lifecylce plugins have been moved to MNG-6169. MPLUGIN has been >>> retained with 3.3 because there were failures. One IT is failing, >>>

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 2017-02-12 um 00:49 schrieb Christian Schulte: Am 02/11/17 um 23:03 schrieb Michael Osipov: The lifecylce plugins have been moved to MNG-6169. MPLUGIN has been retained with 3.3 because there were failures. One IT is failing, MNG-5572. I am looking into the cause right now. Out of

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 02/11/17 um 23:03 schrieb Michael Osipov: > The lifecylce plugins have been moved to MNG-6169. MPLUGIN has been > retained with 3.3 because there were failures. One IT is failing, > MNG-5572. I am looking into the cause right now. Out of curiosity. @Michael: Do you have a FreeBSD box or

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 02/11/17 um 23:03 schrieb Michael Osipov: > Am 2017-02-11 um 18:23 schrieb Christian Schulte: >> Am 02/11/17 um 18:20 schrieb Michael Osipov: >>> Am 2017-02-11 um 18:08 schrieb Christian Schulte: Am 02/08/17 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov: > Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 2017-02-11 um 18:19 schrieb Christian Schulte: Am 02/08/17 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov: Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly: I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through and then cut alpha-1 We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 2017-02-11 um 18:23 schrieb Christian Schulte: Am 02/11/17 um 18:20 schrieb Michael Osipov: Am 2017-02-11 um 18:08 schrieb Christian Schulte: Am 02/08/17 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov: Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly: I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 2017-02-11 um 18:23 schrieb Christian Schulte: Am 02/11/17 um 18:20 schrieb Michael Osipov: Am 2017-02-11 um 18:08 schrieb Christian Schulte: Am 02/08/17 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov: Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly: I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 02/11/17 um 18:20 schrieb Michael Osipov: > Am 2017-02-11 um 18:08 schrieb Christian Schulte: >> Am 02/08/17 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov: >>> Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly: I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through and then cut

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 2017-02-11 um 18:19 schrieb Christian Schulte: Am 02/08/17 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov: Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly: I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through and then cut alpha-1 We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 2017-02-11 um 18:08 schrieb Christian Schulte: Am 02/08/17 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov: Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly: I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through and then cut alpha-1 We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 02/08/17 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov: > Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly: >> I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through >> and then cut alpha-1 >> >> We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer to >> focus that on

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 02/08/17 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov: > Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly: >> I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through >> and then cut alpha-1 >> >> We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer to >> focus that on

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 02/08/17 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov: > Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly: >> I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through >> and then cut alpha-1 >> >> We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer to >> focus that on

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:46:37 +0100, Michael Osipov wrote: Am 2017-02-11 um 15:33 schrieb Robert Scholte: The list of updates should be added to the release notes, I'd say use the matching JIRA issue. Do you want me to add these to the issue description itself? Unless

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 2017-02-11 um 15:33 schrieb Robert Scholte: The list of updates should be added to the release notes, I'd say use the matching JIRA issue. Do you want me to add these to the issue description itself? Unless I create a JIRA issue per dependency, they won't show up in the release notes. One

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 2017-02-11 um 13:56 schrieb Stephen Connolly: MNG-5934 go for it how will thenother two affect the goal of being a drop in for 3.3.9 (if the pom I am building assumes version X is default and we are now version Y) or are these just updates to the Maven core classpath? Please see the

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

The list of updates should be added to the release notes, I'd say use the matching JIRA issue. branch of MNG-5967 looks good to me. On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:30:46 +0100, Michael Osipov wrote: Am 2017-02-11 um 15:18 schrieb Robert Scholte: In both cases I'm missing a

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 2017-02-11 um 15:18 schrieb Robert Scholte: In both cases I'm missing a list of what's being updated (and maybe why...). I know there were a couple of plugins for which the latest is not the greatest due to some small regressions. So without these details I'd say no. I am preparing two

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

In both cases I'm missing a list of what's being updated (and maybe why...). I know there were a couple of plugins for which the latest is not the greatest due to some small regressions. So without these details I'd say no. Robert On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:06:34 +0100, Michael Osipov

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

MNG-5934 go for it how will thenother two affect the goal of being a drop in for 3.3.9 (if the pom I am building assumes version X is default and we are now version Y) or are these just updates to the Maven core classpath? On Sat 11 Feb 2017 at 11:06, Michael Osipov wrote:

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 2017-02-08 um 21:14 schrieb Michael Osipov: Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly: I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through and then cut alpha-1 We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer to focus that on shaking out

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

I agree, not for 3.5.0. Robert On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 21:07:15 +0100, Stephen Connolly wrote: These would change dependency resolution and prevent being a drop in for 3.3.9 so unless I hear a good counter-argument, I say no to that branch. Fine for 3.5.1 On

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

These would change dependency resolution and prevent being a drop in for 3.3.9 so unless I hear a good counter-argument, I say no to that branch. Fine for 3.5.1 On Fri 10 Feb 2017 at 17:55, Christian Schulte wrote: > Am 02/08/17 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > > I think

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 02/08/17 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through > and then cut alpha-1 > > We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer to > focus that on shaking out bugs. > > Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 02/10/17 um 18:35 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > I suspect we can just remove `testBrokenProjectSilentlyProcessedUpToVerify` > as that test doesn't work at all Updated commit is here: Previous

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 02/10/17 um 18:34 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > You still have not answered why the overly complex range > > (,3.3.0),[3.3.0,3.3.9],(3.3.9,3.5.0) > > That says: > * all versions less than 3.3.0; union with > * all versions greater than or equal to 3.3.0 and less than or equal to > 3.3.9; union

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 02/10/17 um 18:35 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > I suspect we can just remove `testBrokenProjectSilentlyProcessedUpToVerify` > as that test doesn't work at all Ok. No need to keep it. - To unsubscribe, e-mail:

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

I suspect we can just remove `testBrokenProjectSilentlyProcessedUpToVerify` as that test doesn't work at all On 10 February 2017 at 17:34, Stephen Connolly < stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote: > You still have not answered why the overly complex range > >

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

You still have not answered why the overly complex range (,3.3.0),[3.3.0,3.3.9],(3.3.9,3.5.0) That says: * all versions less than 3.3.0; union with * all versions greater than or equal to 3.3.0 and less than or equal to 3.3.9; union with * all versions greater than 3.3.9 and less than 3.5.0

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 02/09/17 um 13:08 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > I have added some comments on the integration tests: > https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/commit/f9c0d641ae362ff59c76bc7eb670c8214917f0c3 > Replied there. Is the discussion retained when rebasing the branch? That will change the

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

I have added some comments on the integration tests: https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/commit/f9c0d641ae362ff59c76bc7eb670c8214917f0c3 On 9 February 2017 at 11:28, Christian Schulte wrote: > Am 02/08/17 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > > I think all the

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 02/08/17 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through > and then cut alpha-1 > > We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer to > focus that on shaking out bugs. > > Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

On 9 Feb 2017, at 9:01, Stephen Connolly wrote: > I toyed with spinning RCs but I'm thinking alpha and beta are better terms Have been using the nightly builds without issue on our projects - no perceived issues anywhere so far. Can I preload a +1? :) -- Mark Derricutt

Re: I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

Am 2017-02-08 um 21:01 schrieb Stephen Connolly: I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through and then cut alpha-1 We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer to focus that on shaking out bugs. Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's before

I think we are ready for 3.5.0-alpha-1

I think all the important stuff is merged. I'll take a final review through and then cut alpha-1 We can still add stuff if necessary for an alpha-2 but I'd much prefer to focus that on shaking out bugs. Ideally we do at most 3 alpha's before soft-code-freeze and a beta (at which point it should

  1   2   >