PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.1.0 Plans (a proposal of sorts)
I'm +1 for including it and providing an opt-out switch to turn it
off. If we can make that switch stick permanently via the
settings.xml, so much the better.
+1 (even better, configure number of parallel threads
Question about 2.1.0 / 3.0.0.
In 3.0 alpha2 Jason fix a problem with jaxws-maven.
Could it be backported to 2.1.0 ?
Also did this new 'mileston' will be used in m2eclipse.
I know Maven 3.0 is the target for m2eclipse but during the intermin,
having a stable and known 2.1 would be nice.
On 18/02/2009, at 7:43 PM, Henri Gomez wrote:
Question about 2.1.0 / 3.0.0.
In 3.0 alpha2 Jason fix a problem with jaxws-maven.
Could it be backported to 2.1.0 ?
I believe that problem doesn't affect 2.1.0.
Also did this new 'mileston' will be used in m2eclipse.
I know Maven 3.0 is
2009/2/18 Brett Porter br...@apache.org:
On 18/02/2009, at 7:43 PM, Henri Gomez wrote:
Question about 2.1.0 / 3.0.0.
In 3.0 alpha2 Jason fix a problem with jaxws-maven.
Could it be backported to 2.1.0 ?
I believe that problem doesn't affect 2.1.0.
Nope, the jaxws maven plugin didn't
As was highlighted before in these threads, this is a completely
different 2.1.0 to the one previously included in m2eclipse (it never
has been included):
http://www.sonatype.com/people/2008/11/a-visual-history-of-maven-2/
- Brett
On 18/02/2009, at 10:32 PM, Henri Gomez wrote:
2009/2/18
I build my JAX-WS project with maven 2.1.0-M1 and it works :)
Good news, but could it be used in m2eclipse ?
2009/2/18 Brett Porter br...@apache.org:
As was highlighted before in these threads, this is a completely different
2.1.0 to the one previously included in m2eclipse (it never has been
On 18/02/2009, at 11:59 PM, Henri Gomez wrote:
I build my JAX-WS project with maven 2.1.0-M1 and it works :)
Good news, but could it be used in m2eclipse ?
It's really something to take up with m2eclipse... but I don't see it
happening for the reason I outlined earlier regarding the
2009/2/18 Brett Porter br...@apache.org:
On 18/02/2009, at 11:59 PM, Henri Gomez wrote:
I build my JAX-WS project with maven 2.1.0-M1 and it works :)
Good news, but could it be used in m2eclipse ?
It's really something to take up with m2eclipse... but I don't see it
happening for the
On 18/02/2009, at 4:58 PM, John Casey wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
On 18/02/2009, at 7:23 AM, John Casey wrote:
It will take less effort for me to just keep working on issues
until they are done, so that's what I'll do. So, agreed, next
version is 2.1.0, standard RC cycle applies.
I'm
2.1 has actually served the purpose it was intended for and should be
released. Obviously, the other items that were intended for 2.1
haven't been completed and shouldn't hold things up. So +1 on
releasing 2.1.0 now.
As for the other items that weren't completed, at this point it is
-
From: Brett Porter [mailto:br...@porterclan.net] On Behalf Of Brett
Porter
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 7:44 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.1.0 Plans (a proposal of sorts)
I'm +1 for including it and providing an opt-out switch to turn it
off. If we can make
, 2009 7:44 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.1.0 Plans (a proposal of sorts)
I'm +1 for including it and providing an opt-out switch to turn it
off. If we can make that switch stick permanently via the
settings.xml, so much the better.
+1 (even better, configure number of parallel
.
-Original Message-
From: Brett Porter [mailto:br...@porterclan.net] On Behalf Of Brett
Porter
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 7:44 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.1.0 Plans (a proposal of sorts)
I'm +1 for including it and providing an opt-out switch to turn it
off. If we can
it. So I say if we want to get it included, then let's
have a release right away
-Original Message-
From: Dennis Lundberg [mailto:denn...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 6:50 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.1.0 Plans (a proposal of sorts)
I'm undecided about
.
-Original Message-
From: Brett Porter [mailto:br...@porterclan.net] On Behalf Of Brett
Porter
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 7:44 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.1.0 Plans (a proposal of sorts)
I'm +1 for including it and providing an opt-out switch to turn it
off. If we can
On 18/02/2009, at 7:23 AM, John Casey wrote:
I fully agree with Brian about the version naming for the next
release.
I couldn't possibly care less what version we use at this point, only
that we start doing releases again. I want to see 2.1 out as much as
anyone. However, it was
Brett Porter wrote:
On 18/02/2009, at 7:23 AM, John Casey wrote:
It will take less effort for me to just keep working on issues until
they are done, so that's what I'll do. So, agreed, next version is
2.1.0, standard RC cycle applies.
I'm fine whittling away some of what's left out
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.1.0 Plans (a proposal of sorts)
I'm +1 for including it and providing an opt-out switch to turn it
off. If we can make that switch stick permanently via the
settings.xml, so much the better.
+1 (even better, configure number of parallel threads
If it has a decent test suite and is released, I have no problem putting
it in, at least early in the RC process (to give it a little soak time).
With a strong test suite, I would think this soak period would give us a
good enough chance to check site production...though I wonder, will this
I'll rearrange the JIRA versions today, then...it looks like we're all
in agreement about moving directly toward 2.1.0 generally.
As for the parallel download issue, I guess I'm mainly concerned about
hidden race conditions, deadlocks, etc. Just because there are 400
people using it
2009/2/9 John Casey jdca...@commonjava.org:
I'll rearrange the JIRA versions today, then...it looks like we're all in
agreement about moving directly toward 2.1.0 generally.
As for the parallel download issue, I guess I'm mainly concerned about
hidden race conditions, deadlocks, etc. Just
John Casey wrote:
I'm +1 for including it and providing an opt-out switch to turn it off.
+1
Benjamin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
I'm +1 for including it and providing an opt-out switch to turn it
off. If we can make that switch stick permanently via the
settings.xml, so much the better.
+1 (even better, configure number of parallel threads, just set it to
1 to turn it off).
On 09/02/2009, at 11:18 PM, John
Yep good idea.
-Original Message-
From: Brett Porter [mailto:br...@porterclan.net] On Behalf Of Brett
Porter
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 7:44 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.1.0 Plans (a proposal of sorts)
I'm +1 for including it and providing an opt-out switch
Subject: Re: Maven 2.1.0 Plans (a proposal of sorts)
I'm +1 for including it and providing an opt-out switch to turn it
off. If we can make that switch stick permanently via the
settings.xml, so much the better.
+1 (even better, configure number of parallel threads, just set it to
1 to turn
]
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 10:48 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.1.0 Plans (a proposal of sorts)
It would be a shame to drop such a useful feature like parallel
downloads when it is working perfectly and been used by developers for
months with no reports of problems
Don Brown wrote:
Do you have tests that pull down multiple dependencies?
Yes, but AFAICT only dependencies from the same group id.
If yes, you do have test coverage. [...] I'm not
saying more test coverage isn't a good thing, just that this
functionality probably does have coverage.
The
And can't we have an option to deactivate it in 2.1 ?
If it works like expected we'll remove it in 3.0
(I continue to be in favor to have tests, but it's really difficult to have
a good coverage it can be a cheap solution)
Arnaud
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Benjamin Bentmann
+1000 to having it on by default but can be disabled from a CLI option
+1 to having it off by default but can be turned on from a CLI option
-1000 to not having // downloading
just my €0.02
-Stephen
2009/2/8 Arnaud HERITIER aherit...@gmail.com:
And can't we have an option to deactivate it in
Don Brown wrote:
Do you have tests that pull down multiple dependencies?
I just added a test that pulls down 16 dependencies, using 4 different
group ids and 4 dependencies per group id. The test uses the checksum
policy fail to check that the artifacts are intact. What remains to
check is
From my point of view (and the point of view of many colleagues), the most
important feature about 2.1 release is to be able to use the same stable
Maven version in m2eclipse and command line.
Actually, the only way to have good performances and control on Maven
integration in Eclipse is to use
Umm
m2eclipse is using the 3.x branch, not the 2.1 branch.
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Bouiaw bou...@gmail.com wrote:
From my point of view (and the point of view of many colleagues), the most
important feature about 2.1 release is to be able to use the same stable
Maven version in
Message-
From: Bouiaw [mailto:bou...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 11:53 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.1.0 Plans (a proposal of sorts)
From my point of view (and the point of view of many colleagues), the
most
important feature about 2.1 release is to be able to use
While I prefer 2.1 to be released soon, I am more interested in bug
fixes from 2.0.10 and 2.0.11 than the new features.
What do you guys think about moving all of the 2.0.11 tickets to
2.1-M4? I am pretty sure you guys said only show stoppers would go
into 2.0.x once it's EOL.
Paul
here for more details:
http://www.sonatype.com/people/2008/11/a-visual-history-of-maven-2/
-Original Message-
From: Bouiaw [mailto:bou...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 11:53 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.1.0 Plans (a proposal of sorts)
From my point
Picking up the doxia thread:
I have the feeling Doxia is never going to get out of it's vicious circle: we are
hesitant to release 1.1 because without the site plugin using it, it doesn't get
any hard-core testing, and for maven you guys don't want to use it because it
hasn't been released
Any thing fixed in 2.0.10/11 will be in 2.1+
--Brian (mobile)
On Feb 8, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org wrote:
While I prefer 2.1 to be released soon, I am more interested in bug
fixes from 2.0.10 and 2.0.11 than the new features.
What do you guys think about moving
Is it released yet? The reason it didn't make the previous releases is
that it wasn't ready. I think it should be in 2.1 but not 2.0 at this
point
--Brian (mobile)
On Feb 8, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Lukas Theussl ltheu...@apache.org wrote:
Picking up the doxia thread:
I have the feeling Doxia
On 08/02/2009, at 10:12 PM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
Don Brown wrote:
Do you have tests that pull down multiple dependencies?
I just added a test that pulls down 16 dependencies, using 4
different group ids and 4 dependencies per group id. The test uses
the checksum policy fail to check
Hi Arnaud,
Arnaud HERITIER wrote at Sonntag, 8. Februar 2009 14:33:
And can't we have an option to deactivate it in 2.1 ?
That would be a really good idea.
If it works like expected we'll remove it in 3.0
(I continue to be in favor to have tests, but it's really difficult to
have a good
I agree to have a 2.1 ASAP with well tested features.
We'll move others like // downloads in a 2.2
Arnaud
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 5:36 PM, John Casey jdca...@commonjava.org wrote:
Hi everyone,
I wanted to step back from the current Maven 2.1.0-M* release plan for a
second and reassess our
(for some reason this got bounced as spam earlier, so I rewrote it and
chopped the quotation in the hope it gets through...)
I thought this was already the direction we were going... (see
releasing 2.0.10 thread).
I already suggested we drop the auto parent version and PGP stuff from
the
: Friday, February 06, 2009 12:12 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.1.0 Plans (a proposal of sorts)
Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
John Casey wrote:
At that point, we can make plans for a relatively fast release of
2.1.1 for the higher-risk issues that are sitting in the 2.1.0-M
I don't believe the existing Its test parallel downloads specifically.
-Original Message-
From: Don Brown [mailto:mr...@twdata.org]
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 10:48 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.1.0 Plans (a proposal of sorts)
It would be a shame to drop
We do need the password security changes finished. Oleg, are you working on
the docs or should I put them together based on your blog? Is there anything
else left to do in the code? I think that dependency needs to be out of
alpha before we go final - I think we discussed that sort of criteria
Hi everyone,
I wanted to step back from the current Maven 2.1.0-M* release plan for a
second and reassess our progress on the issues we were planning as the
centerpiece for each release.
I've been trying to match up the milestone issues found on
John Casey wrote:
In light of the above, along with the good stability we've seen in the
first milestone release, I'd *much* prefer pushing toward a release of
2.1.0-final.
+1.
At that point, we can make plans for a relatively fast release of 2.1.1
for the higher-risk issues that are
Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
John Casey wrote:
At that point, we can make plans for a relatively fast release of
2.1.1 for the higher-risk issues that are sitting in the 2.1.0-M*
buckets now...possibly parallel artifact downloads if we can ever get
test coverage for that.
IMHO the introduction
I don't really get a vote, but as a user, implementer, and
recommender, I heartily agree with this. parallel resolution in 2.2,
and tie off a 2.1 final as quickly as possible.
Cheers,
Christian.
On 6-Feb-09, at 12:12 , John Casey wrote:
Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
John Casey wrote:
At that
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: Re: Maven 2.1.0 Plans (a proposal of sorts)
Benjamin Bentmann wrote:
John Casey wrote:
At that point, we can make plans for a relatively fast release of
2.1.1 for the higher-risk issues that are sitting in the 2.1.0-M*
buckets now...possibly parallel
50 matches
Mail list logo
