How does 3.1.1 compare to 3.1.0 for your project ?
Kristian
11. Juni 2014 05:03 skrev "James Mao" følgende:
> Why Maven 3.1.1 is much faster than 3.0.X, what was the fix in the release?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/Release-Maven-3-1-1-tp5765942p5
Why Maven 3.1.1 is much faster than 3.0.X, what was the fix in the release?
--
View this message in context:
http://maven.40175.n5.nabble.com/Release-Maven-3-1-1-tp5765942p5795322.html
Sent from the Maven Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
The vote has passed with the following result:
+1 (binding): Kristian Rosenvold, Robert Scholte, Hervé Boutemy, Wayne Fay,
Jason van Zyl
+1: Fred Cook (Fredalizer), Tamás Cservenák, Mark Derricutt
I'll promote the artifacts and publish the site.
On Sep 17, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote
+1 even if I'm late to the epic party. Love the sebbaliser, great work, and
sense of humour, Jason! Dislike his lack of enthusiasm for the name. I'd
have bragged about it for years if you'd called it the fredaliser :-)
Unfortunately I am too busy to continue nagging. Good on sebb for picking
up the
+1
Op Wed, 25 Sep 2013 17:22:45 +0200 schreef Jason van Zyl :
Anyone else going to give the release a whirl?
On Sep 17, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
Maven Core ITs are good, and the license/notice issue has been resolved
so I'm rolling 3.1.1 again.
Here is a link to Jira
+1
Regards,
Hervé
Le mercredi 25 septembre 2013 08:22:45 Jason van Zyl a écrit :
> Anyone else going to give the release a whirl?
>
> On Sep 17, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Maven Core ITs are good, and the license/notice issue has been resolved so
> > I'm rolling 3.
Did you/can you check the contents of the bad jars ?
Kristian
2013/9/26 jieryn :
> Greetings,
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> Does 3.1.0 not display this behaviour?
>>
>> On Sep 25, 2013, at 6:41 PM, jieryn wrote:
>>> Archive for required library:
>>> '$HOME/.m2/re
Greetings,
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Does 3.1.0 not display this behaviour?
>
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 6:41 PM, jieryn wrote:
>> Archive for required library:
>> '$HOME/.m2/repository/$GROUPID/$ARTIFACTID/$VERSION/$FINALNAME.jar' in
>> project 'test' cannot be read or
+1 tried on Nexus builds (with modded nx plugin in build, that updates
Aether to Eclipse one).
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Wayne Fay wrote:
> +1 binding
> Finally gave it a shot last night after your reminder email, works
> well on various projects I tested it with.
>
> Wayne
>
> On Wed, S
+1 binding
Finally gave it a shot last night after your reminder email, works
well on various projects I tested it with.
Wayne
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Anyone else going to give the release a whirl?
>
> On Sep 17, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
Does 3.1.0 not display this behaviour?
On Sep 25, 2013, at 6:41 PM, jieryn wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> The distributable binaries and sources for testing can be found here:
>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/org/a
Greetings,
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> The distributable binaries and sources for testing can be found here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/org/apache/maven/apache-maven/3.1.1/
I can not definitively say that this is because of Apache Ma
For the record - +1 Non Binding after I fixed my broken .m2 :)
Lets roll this baby!
On 26/09/2013, at 3:22 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Anyone else going to give the release a whirl?
-- Mark Derricutt ( m...@talios.com )
— twitter: https://twitter.com/talios
— podcast: http://www.illegalargume
I didn't have any problem in my tests
but the release reference documentation staging is still missing: I tried to
continue helping on IRC, but couldn't get in touch with you thses last 2 days
Tell me if anything prevents you from publishing the doc
Regards,
Hervé
Le mercredi 25 septembre 2013
+1
Den 25. sep. 2013 17:23 skrev "Jason van Zyl" følgende:
> Anyone else going to give the release a whirl?
>
> On Sep 17, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Maven Core ITs are good, and the license/notice issue has been resolved
> so I'm rolling 3.1.1 again.
> >
> > Here i
Anyone else going to give the release a whirl?
On Sep 17, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Maven Core ITs are good, and the license/notice issue has been resolved so
> I'm rolling 3.1.1 again.
>
> Here is a link to Jira with 6 issues resolved:
> https://jira.codehaus.org/secur
Sent from my iPad
> On Sep 22, 2013, at 4:41 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 22 September 2013 05:03, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 21, 2013, at 7:44 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>
On 22 September 2013 03:09, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2013, at 6:16 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> On 21 S
On 22 September 2013 05:03, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Sep 21, 2013, at 7:44 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 22 September 2013 03:09, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>> On Sep 21, 2013, at 6:16 PM, sebb wrote:
>>>
On 21 September 2013 23:09, Jason van Zyl wrote:
It would still be automated.
On 22 September 2013 08:13, Mark Derricutt wrote:
> On 22/09/2013, at 9:28 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> A check is performed to ensure that each file in the source archive is
> present in the release revision
>
>
> Should that not be the other way around? That every file in the git clone
> should
On 22/09/2013, at 9:28 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> A check is performed to ensure that each file in the source archive is
> present in the release revision
Should that not be the other way around? That every file in the git clone
should be in the source archive? Or vice versa, that should be
On Sep 21, 2013, at 7:44 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 22 September 2013 03:09, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 2013, at 6:16 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>>> On 21 September 2013 23:09, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>
>>> It would still be automated.
>>> However the source data would come form the vote e-mail, w
On 22 September 2013 03:09, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2013, at 6:16 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 21 September 2013 23:09, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>
>> It would still be automated.
>> However the source data would come form the vote e-mail, which makes
>> more sense to me.
>>
>
> If it were gene
On Sep 21, 2013, at 6:16 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 21 September 2013 23:09, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> It would still be automated.
> However the source data would come form the vote e-mail, which makes
> more sense to me.
>
If it were generated I would agree. Manually making an email is not automat
On 21 September 2013 23:09, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Sep 21, 2013, at 2:51 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 21 September 2013 22:28, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>> You will now be infamous :-)
>>>
>>> https://github.com/jvanzyl/sebbalizer
>>>
>>> If you don't like the name, happy to change it. I thought it
+1
---
Analyzing source release validity...
stagingUrl: https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-065
groupId: org.apache.maven
artifactId: apache-maven
version: 3.1.1
Source ZIP url exists.
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-065/org/apache/maven/apache-mave
On Sep 21, 2013, at 2:51 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 21 September 2013 22:28, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>> You will now be infamous :-)
>>
>> https://github.com/jvanzyl/sebbalizer
>>
>> If you don't like the name, happy to change it. I thought it was appropriate
>> and meant as a compliment for being th
On 21 September 2013 22:28, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> You will now be infamous :-)
>
> https://github.com/jvanzyl/sebbalizer
>
> If you don't like the name, happy to change it. I thought it was appropriate
> and meant as a compliment for being thorough.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Sorry, but I don't lik
You will now be infamous :-)
https://github.com/jvanzyl/sebbalizer
If you don't like the name, happy to change it. I thought it was appropriate
and meant as a compliment for being thorough.
With a given staging URL, groupId, artifact, and version it will retrieve the
source archive, and binary
On 17 September 2013 16:39, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Maven Core ITs are good, and the license/notice issue has been resolved so
> I'm rolling 3.1.1 again.
>
> Here is a link to Jira with 6 issues resolved:
> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18968
>
>
ah ok, staging to http://maven.staging.apache.org/
no, this url is for CMS staging only, which does not contain/support component
included sites: see http://maven.staging.apache.org/ref/ for example, which
does not exist. In fact, everything from extpaths.txt isn't published in CMS
staging sit
A button on the CMS page that says "Staging Site" and it produces a standard
URL for a staging site that can be used for all core releases.
On Sep 19, 2013, at 1:19 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> what do you call "a standard staging location"?
> what more automation do you expect?
>
> Le jeudi 19
what do you call "a standard staging location"?
what more automation do you expect?
Le jeudi 19 septembre 2013 11:02:46 Jason van Zyl a écrit :
> Do you think we can make a small addition to have it publish to a standard
> staging location? Is that hard to add to the tool? Would help us reach a
>
Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
- Reply message -
From: "Jason van Zyl"
To: "Maven Developers List"
Subject: [VOTE] Release Maven 3.1.1
Date: Thu, Sep 19, 2013 7:30 PM
Are you just manually copying that or is there an option on the CMS t
Sent from my HTC On kme™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
- Reply message -
From: "Jason van Zyl"
To: "Maven Developers List"
Subject: [VOTE] Release Maven 3.1.1
Date: Thu, Sep 19, 2013 7:30 PM
Are you just manually copying that or is there an option on the CMS t
I'm making a small tool to validate the distro. I don't want to do this
manually anymore :-)
On Sep 19, 2013, at 7:14 AM, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> Jason, are you going to cast your vote on this?
>
>
> On 17 September 2013 16:39, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Maven Core ITs are good
Do you think we can make a small addition to have it publish to a standard
staging location? Is that hard to add to the tool? Would help us reach a state
of more automation.
I'll follow those steps for the time being.
On Sep 19, 2013, at 10:19 AM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> it does not use CMS
>
it does not use CMS
I split the instructions in 2 parts to make things as clear as possible:
1. mvn -Preporting site site:stage
= local HTML generation and staging of multiple modules into one local staging
area
2. mvn scm-publish:publish-scm
publish local staging area to website svn area, which
Jason, are you going to cast your vote on this?
On 17 September 2013 16:39, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Maven Core ITs are good, and the license/notice issue has been resolved so
> I'm rolling 3.1.1 again.
>
> Here is a link to Jira with 6 issues resolved:
>
> https://jira.codehaus.org/secur
Are you just manually copying that or is there an option on the CMS to make the
staging site?
On Sep 18, 2013, at 10:18 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote:
> I didn't have time to test this release for the moment
>
> but I updated a few days ago Maven core release instructions [1] to stage
> core
> ref
After some experimentation I still couldn't detect any errors showing up,
however, I did remember I noticed some strange anomalies after using
dependency:purge-local-repository the other day - where that goal seems to
delete all the local artifacts, doesn't clean up any of the meta-data files in
I didn't have time to test this release for the moment
but I updated a few days ago Maven core release instructions [1] to stage core
reference documentation:
http://maven.apache.org/ref/3-LATEST/
Actual state is the staging from previous release vote: it should be updated
from actual tag, but I
On 19/09/2013, at 1:09 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> If you can reproduce it in a stand-alone example I can track it down. Or if
> it's an OSS project I'll take a look.
Sadly not unfortunately - 3.1.1 seems to work flawlessly fine for our main
artefacts and any OSS projects I have, but something
If you can reproduce it in a stand-alone example I can track it down. Or if
it's an OSS project I'll take a look.
On Sep 18, 2013, at 5:45 PM, Mark Derricutt wrote:
> Maybe a -1 here, not sure. I was about to +1 this from basic
> builds/releases, but then needed to run some integration tests
+1 (non-binding), installed this as default Maven 3 on a Jenkins
installation and after upping maven-site-plugin from 3.0 to 3.3 in
some projects, around 20 projects (Mostly maven and Jenkins plugin)
were successfully running "mvn clean install site" (@Stephen: even
with Jenkins' Maven job type!)
Hi,
Maven Core ITs are good, and the license/notice issue has been resolved so I'm
rolling 3.1.1 again.
Here is a link to Jira with 6 issues resolved:
https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18968
Staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories
Core ITs are all blue again, there was a resolution failure but seems to be
spurious and the jdk7 build is ok again.
On Sep 17, 2013, at 10:08 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> I'm going to do the re-roll in 30 minutes.
>
> On Sep 8, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here is a
I'm going to do the re-roll in 30 minutes.
On Sep 8, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is a link to Jira with 6 issues resolved:
> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18968
>
> Staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repos
On 14 September 2013 11:19, Baptiste Mathus wrote:
> Le 13 sept. 2013 19:00, "sebb" a écrit :
>>
>> On 12 September 2013 21:52, Baptiste Mathus wrote:
>> > 2013/9/12 sebb
>> >
>> >> On 12 September 2013 14:52, Arnaud Héritier
> wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, sebb wrote:
>> >>
Le 13 sept. 2013 19:00, "sebb" a écrit :
>
> On 12 September 2013 21:52, Baptiste Mathus wrote:
> > 2013/9/12 sebb
> >
> >> On 12 September 2013 14:52, Arnaud Héritier
wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, sebb wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 10 September 2013 16:33, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> >>
On 12 September 2013 21:52, Baptiste Mathus wrote:
> 2013/9/12 sebb
>
>> On 12 September 2013 14:52, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, sebb wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 10 September 2013 16:33, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > -1
>> >> >
>> >> > The src.tar.gz and src.zip
On Sep 13, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Robert Scholte wrote:
> Assuming that we need another vote, it is worth waiting to include Wagon 2.5
> due to WAGON-381.
No, I would prefer to do another release and only fix what's necessary here.
I'd still like to get to the point where we can do push button, m
We found issues with the release so it's cancel. I'll look into the issue Tamas
pointed out and the issue Igor found with workspace dependency resolution as a
result of trying to port m2e to 3.1.x.
I'll try to fix these issues over the weekend and roll another release.
On Sep 8, 2013, at 9:07 A
Assuming that we need another vote, it is worth waiting to include Wagon
2.5 due to WAGON-381.
I wouldn't upgrade the Install Plugin yet. First the Deploy Plugin should
be released as well, so the installAtEnd and deployAtEnd chain is
complete. With only the installAtEnd we can expect confusi
Just a thought that comes to mind.
I see just as this vote was raised a new maven-install-plugin was released, and
a vote is also underway for an updated wagon release.
Is it worth updating the default versions of plugins etc. to use these along
with the 3.1.1 release?
On 9/09/2013, at 1:07 A
2013/9/12 sebb
> On 12 September 2013 14:52, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, sebb wrote:
> >
> >> On 10 September 2013 16:33, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> >> >
> >> > -1
> >> >
> >> > The src.tar.gz and src.zip files have lost their top level NOTICE and
> >> LICENSE files.
On 12 September 2013 18:20, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
>>
>> The point is:
>> the N&L files should be at the top-level of SCM.
>> That is because SCM URLs are published, so the readers need to know
>> the what the license conditions are.
>>
>
> For the License when you are reading some code hosted on
>
> The point is:
> the N&L files should be at the top-level of SCM.
> That is because SCM URLs are published, so the readers need to know
> the what the license conditions are.
>
For the License when you are reading some code hosted on apache.org I think
nobody should have a doubt about it.
>
>
Right o, thanks.
On Sep 12, 2013, at 10:06 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> This should now be fixed on master. Feel free to cancel this vote and
> respin the builds.
>
> Thanks!
> Dan
>
>
> On Sep 10, 2013, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
>>
>> -1
>>
>> The src.tar.gz and src.zip files h
On 12 September 2013 14:52, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> On 10 September 2013 16:33, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>> >
>> > -1
>> >
>> > The src.tar.gz and src.zip files have lost their top level NOTICE and
>> LICENSE files. This is a regression from 3.1.0 (
This should now be fixed on master. Feel free to cancel this vote and respin
the builds.
Thanks!
Dan
On Sep 10, 2013, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> -1
>
> The src.tar.gz and src.zip files have lost their top level NOTICE and LICENSE
> files. This is a regression from 3.1.0 (and
he release against the tag?
>
> That's one way, sure.
>
> Personally, I log the trunk/master/branch, find the appropriate commit
for
> "prepare release maven-3.1.1", check that out, then diff that with the
src
> tar ball as well as diff that with the tag to make sure al
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 10 September 2013 16:33, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> >
> > -1
> >
> > The src.tar.gz and src.zip files have lost their top level NOTICE and
> LICENSE files. This is a regression from 3.1.0 (and 3.0.5). That
> definitely needs to be fixed. I don't h
rt of the
> > release (/.gitignore, /.gitattributes, and
> > /apache-maven/src/bin/.gitattributes), but those files really are
> specific
> > to our scm and thus don't need to be in the source release.
> > >
> > > OK, so is it necessary to check the release
On 10 September 2013 16:33, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> -1
>
> The src.tar.gz and src.zip files have lost their top level NOTICE and LICENSE
> files. This is a regression from 3.1.0 (and 3.0.5). That definitely needs
> to be fixed. I don't have time today to look into that, but might tomorrow
>
ase (/.gitignore, /.gitattributes, and
> /apache-maven/src/bin/.gitattributes), but those files really are specific
> to our scm and thus don't need to be in the source release.
> >
> > OK, so is it necessary to check the release against the tag?
>
> That's one way,
What do you think happened? Is this a change in the remote resources plugin?
On Sep 10, 2013, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> -1
>
> The src.tar.gz and src.zip files have lost their top level NOTICE and LICENSE
> files. This is a regression from 3.1.0 (and 3.0.5). That definitely need
On 10 September 2013 17:16, sebb wrote:
> On 10 September 2013 16:33, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> >
> > -1
> >
> > The src.tar.gz and src.zip files have lost their top level NOTICE and
> LICENSE files. This is a regression from 3.1.0 (and 3.0.5). That
> definitely needs to be fixed. I don't have t
ed to be in
>> the source release.
>
> OK, so is it necessary to check the release against the tag?
That's one way, sure.
Personally, I log the trunk/master/branch, find the appropriate commit for
"prepare release maven-3.1.1", check that out, then diff that with th
On Sep 10, 2013, at 12:04 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> What do you think happened? Is this a change in the remote resources plugin?
No…. in the old releases, they were named LICENSE.txt and NOTICE.txt (txt
extension) which is not how the RR plugin would have ever generated them. This
is a sour
On Sun, 8 Sep 2013 09:07:33 -0400
Jason van Zyl wrote:
+1 (none-binding)
works fine for some mojo projects + nuiton.org and chorem.org projects.
thanks,
tony.
> Hi,
>
> Here is a link to Jira with 6 issues resolved:
> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version
-1
The src.tar.gz and src.zip files have lost their top level NOTICE and LICENSE
files. This is a regression from 3.1.0 (and 3.0.5). That definitely needs
to be fixed. I don't have time today to look into that, but might tomorrow if
someone doesn't beat me to it.
Ran a couple builds with
On 10 September 2013 16:33, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> -1
>
> The src.tar.gz and src.zip files have lost their top level NOTICE and LICENSE
> files. This is a regression from 3.1.0 (and 3.0.5). That definitely needs
> to be fixed. I don't have time today to look into that, but might tomorrow
>
On Sep 10, 2013, at 10:11 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Sep 10, 2013, at 9:58 AM, sebb wrote:
>
>> Which as I have argued all along is insufficient.
>> - the vote email does not have vital information "for the record"
>> - indeed in the case of this vote, neither the vote e-mail nor the
>>
lly interested
in doing due diligence on the source archive contents.
> I didn't open up the JAR from the checked out build. So this is probably the
> best way right now and you've verified the right hash is available from the
> build itself so that's probably what you n
in the binary archive I downloaded.
>
There's the argument for automation! I didn't open up the JAR from the checked
out build. So this is probably the best way right now and you've verified the
right hash is available from the build itself so th
Hi,
Here is a link to Jira with 6 issues resolved:
https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18968
Staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/org/apache/maven/apache-maven
Let's continue with the vote, the binaries are still good. I will send another
message with a new email template for posterity.
On Sep 8, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is a link to Jira with 6 issues resolved:
> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectI
it-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=summary
the c995... hash seems to be associated with
[MNG-5509] org.apache.maven.repository.legacy.DefaultWa...
This happens to be the line after
[maven-release-plugin] prepare release maven-3.1.1 maven-3.1.1
which seems to have th
On Sep 10, 2013, at 7:53 AM, sebb wrote:
> I've just realised that you said the hash is in the maven core jar.
> That is a binary artifact, and has no direct relationship with the
> source artifact on which people are supposed to be voting.
>
It is supposed to be the SHA1 of the release from w
Sure, I can remake the email, but the binaries are fine. I made a little tool
for myself and I'll just use the template from the website.
The SHA1 I took was for the release which is the value that's interpolated into
the build.properties.
On Sep 9, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
+1
Den 8. sep. 2013 15:08 skrev "Jason van Zyl" følgende:
> Hi,
>
> Here is a link to Jira with 6 issues resolved:
>
> https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18968
>
> Staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/
>
> The distribu
I've just realised that you said the hash is in the maven core jar.
That is a binary artifact, and has no direct relationship with the
source artifact on which people are supposed to be voting.
I don't think it's possible to tie the SCM tag to this vote thread
"for the record" without the hash (an
+1 [non-binding]
Tested with
* appassembler-maven-plugin (trunk: r18705)
* maven-invoker-plugin (trunk: r1521365),
* iterator-maven-plugin (git: 07ddf1a6a8fe4b60dbb84ce944c3a4f7828bff3e
https://github.com/khmarbaise/iterator-maven-plugin),
* several of my own projects worked like a charm.
On
On 9 September 2013 20:56, Stephen Connolly
wrote:
> On 8 September 2013 18:51, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 8, 2013, at 1:12 PM, sebb wrote:
>>
>> > I thought you were going to include the SCM coordinates used to create
>> > the tarballs?
>> >
>>
>> Sorry, not intentional. I forgot.
>>
>
On 8 September 2013 18:51, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Sep 8, 2013, at 1:12 PM, sebb wrote:
>
> > I thought you were going to include the SCM coordinates used to create
> > the tarballs?
> >
>
> Sorry, not intentional. I forgot.
>
> > It's particularly important here, because AFAICT the SCM coor
+1 (non-binding) - tested releases against our OSGi based setup using
maven-bundle-plugin, my own coffeescript mojos and others.
Nothing glaringly out of order for me.
--
Mark Derricutt — twitter — podcast — blog — google+
On 9/09/2013, at 1:07 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Here is a link to Jir
Awesome, thanks.
On Sep 9, 2013, at 3:19 PM, Mirko Friedenhagen wrote:
> +1 (non-binding), tested with extra-enforcer-rules, testlink-junit and
> jenkinsci-jobConfigHistory-plugin.
> Regards Mirko
> --
> http://illegalstateexception.blogspot.com/
> https://github.com/mfriedenhagen/
> https://bit
+1 (non-binding), tested with extra-enforcer-rules, testlink-junit and
jenkinsci-jobConfigHistory-plugin.
Regards Mirko
--
http://illegalstateexception.blogspot.com/
https://github.com/mfriedenhagen/
https://bitbucket.org/mfriedenhagen/
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Hi,
On 8 September 2013 18:51, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On Sep 8, 2013, at 1:12 PM, sebb wrote:
>
>> I thought you were going to include the SCM coordinates used to create
>> the tarballs?
>>
>
> Sorry, not intentional. I forgot.
>
>> It's particularly important here, because AFAICT the SCM coordinat
On Sep 8, 2013, at 1:12 PM, sebb wrote:
> I thought you were going to include the SCM coordinates used to create
> the tarballs?
>
Sorry, not intentional. I forgot.
> It's particularly important here, because AFAICT the SCM coordinates
> are not present in the POM.
> If true, then it's not po
I thought you were going to include the SCM coordinates used to create
the tarballs?
It's particularly important here, because AFAICT the SCM coordinates
are not present in the POM.
If true, then it's not possible to verify the files in the source tarballs.
Also, AFAIK, the PMC agreed to include
Hi,
Here is a link to Jira with 6 issues resolved:
https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500&version=18968
Staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-016/
The distributable binaries and sources for testing can be found here:
https://repository.
pache.org/content/repositories/maven-030/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How about we do a simultaneous release vote for the core and the remote
>>>>>>> resources plugin?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 28,
gt;>> How about we do a simultaneous release vote for the core and the remote
>>>>>> resources plugin?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>&g
>>>>>> maven-remote-resources-plugin.
>>>>>> This was done in this commit by Daniel to improve the LICENCE file:
>>>>>> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven.git;a=commit;h=b4dc8931f2cc7b56302df78c03a7db57211cd3a7
>>>>>&g
, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>>>>>>> I staged a release of the remote resources plugin for anyone who
>>> wants to try:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-030/
>>&g
r class wasn't added to plexus-utils until version 1.5.8,
>> so
>>>>>>> using the default version 1.1 won't work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Jason van Zyl
>> w
, Jason van Zyl
> wrote:
> >>>>>> I staged a release of the remote resources plugin for anyone who
> >> wants to try:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-030/
> >>>>>
;>
>>>>>> On Jul 28, 2013, at 3:56 PM, Dennis Lundberg
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is currently a SNAPSHOT dependency on
>> maven-remote-resources-plugin.
>
nnis Lundberg
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is currently a SNAPSHOT dependency on
> maven-remote-resources-plugin.
> >>>>> This was done in this commit by Daniel to improve the LICENCE file:
&
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
