For the Hibernate 2.X report, that project was initially built for the
hibernate 2 plugin, which at this moment I don't know if it's still a live
project. The hibernate 3 plugin still part of MOJO so all bug tracking and
release it's done inside MOJO
Regards
Johann Reyes
On 6/6/07, Dennis Lundb
Yes that's correct. I double checked the analyze-dep-mgt behavior. It
will show errors in 2.0.5 but not in 2.0.6 (because there can't be in
2.0.6)
-Original Message-
From: Joakim Erdfelt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 10:03 AM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: R
On 07/06/2007, at 12:09 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
- we will have to retain runtime compatibility in 2.1, but not
necessarily API compatibility which is fine
For plugins yes, for sanity. Not any other APIs. Plugins using
older artifact APIs are not my concern for 2.1. Those plugins will
ha
On 07/06/2007, at 1:02 PM, Henri Yandell wrote:
On 6/6/07, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since this is not urgent, as you mentioned, we can afford to wait
until a time when we don't have two active branches in development
that share patches.
Still learning... two active branches? Whi
On 6/6/07, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Since this is not urgent, as you mentioned, we can afford to wait
until a time when we don't have two active branches in development
that share patches.
Still learning... two active branches? Which ones?
I don't grok the API discussions much, bu
Ok, I pushed all these into the MPA JIRA:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?
reset=true&mode=hide&sorter/order=DESC&sorter/
field=priority&resolution=-1&pid=10332&fixfor=13535
I've taken for myself:
- Come up with a minimal workflow for JIRA
- Clean up JIRA (not going to do i
I created an core integration test with an albeit contrived example of
the A -> B -> C -> D use case.
See it0121, it's commit'd
- Joakim
Kenney Westerhof wrote:
I think it's a matter of scope and ordering.
Some brainstorming on specifying this out to the letter:
> > > | A -> B -> C -> D
>
Ok, retested and it does work with 2.3. Guess it was me..
Anyway, you didn't set the version back, you set it to something specific -
before
it didn't specify any version so whatever was installed was used. I think it
used
2.2 here here or something, which is awful.
Anyway thanks, 2.3 is fi
I deployed all of it way before I committed this.
Continuum shouldn't complain ;)
Maybe we need to add some pluginrepo somewhere?
It'd be temporarily, i've got a feeling 2.3.1 will be released asap
as it contains major bugfixes. I just couldn't build it with 2.2.
-- Kenney
Vincent Siveton wrot
I think it's a matter of scope and ordering.
Some brainstorming on specifying this out to the letter:
> > > | A -> B -> C -> D
> > > |
> > > | C depends on D 1.0
> > > | B has D 2.0 in dependencyManagement, no D in dependencies
> > > |
B uses depMgt to say D has to be 2.0. What for?
1) for p
Thanks!
Vincent
2007/6/6, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi Vincent,
I'm aware of that (the snapshot plugin repo probably isn't declared).
I was asking whether it really needed to be 2.3.1-SNAPSHOT, since 2.3
works just fine :)
I'll set the version back until Kenney says otherwise in the
i
Hi Vincent,
I'm aware of that (the snapshot plugin repo probably isn't declared).
I was asking whether it really needed to be 2.3.1-SNAPSHOT, since 2.3
works just fine :)
I'll set the version back until Kenney says otherwise in the
interests of fixing the build.
- Brett
On 07/06/2007,
Hi Brett,
See Continuum log:
http://maven.zones.apache.org/~maven/logs/branches/maven-2.0.x/m2-build-log-20070607.001504.txt
Cheers,
Vincent
2007/6/6, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Are you sure? I just flipped the version to 2.3 and it built just fine.
On 07/06/2007, at 3:34 AM, [EMAIL P
On 07/06/2007, at 10:11 AM, Deacon, Brian wrote:
But does the Maven Jedi Council have any problem in principal with
allowing the element to specify the name of the pom file?
Thought of it already someone has, ? http://jira.codehaus.org/
browse/MNG-1493
I'd actually be happy with treat
Are you sure? I just flipped the version to 2.3 and it built just fine.
On 07/06/2007, at 3:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: kenney
Date: Wed Jun 6 10:34:14 2007
New Revision: 544891
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=544891
Log:
Make surefire version explicit; this is the
Ultimately the short answer is who cares what 2.0.x does.
Why?
Because we didn't write the spec first and anything that has been
done has been embodied in code and subject to changes like MNG-1577.
We need a spec, define the behavior and then write to that. Trying to
do anything with 2.0.x
That's exactly right, Evan. I actually was planning on having a
java-master-pom.xml, dot-net-master-pom.xml, and a top-level pom.xml
that included each of them. AFA the dependency issue, I'm using the
dependencyManagement element at the top, and all dependencies specified
in each project, so ther
Hi Kenney,
Could you deploy a snapshot of surefire? Continuum complains...
Thanks,
Vincent
2007/6/6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Author: kenney
Date: Wed Jun 6 10:34:14 2007
New Revision: 544891
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=544891
Log:
Make surefire version expl
yes
On 6/6/07, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Should http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MAVENREPOMAINT be deleted?
Hen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi guys,
Thanks for your replies.
I created a new JXR issue for this thread.
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JXR-54
You could see that I created a Maven Forrestdoc Plugin to handle the
Forrestdoc tool.
Actually, Forrestdoc has several limitations like the hardcoded bottom
and the fact that it i
+1 from me
On 07/06/2007, at 8:01 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
Should http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MAVENREPOMAINT be deleted?
Hen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian,
I have encountered the same issue and I believe I can safely assume that you
are in a java/C# environment in which you would like to have one pom which
has two modules, one for the java component and one for the dotnet.
One thing to consider is that even if you could construct the pom thi
Since this is not urgent, as you mentioned, we can afford to wait
until a time when we don't have two active branches in development
that share patches. This refactoring will lead to a lot of confusion
when users submit patches, since we'll have to (a) know what the
patch is against, and (b
Should http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MAVENREPOMAINT be deleted?
Hen
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
They look good :)
I hope you were able to copy from the commons one[1] rather than
having to go from scratch. Are your swizzle scripts checked in yet?
Fun things to look at.
Hen
[1]http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jakarta/commons/proper/commons-nightly/trunk/jira-email.vm
and http://people.apach
Hi guys,
Thought I'd kick this around to see how it would be received.
I just posted to the Users list and got confirmation that I can't
currently do the following in a pom parent
multi-module pom:
foo/bar
foo/bar/SiblingPom.xml
The current behavior is that it looks for foo/bar/S
Hi
I've spent the day learning the ins and outs of swizzle. It's really an
awesome tool for aggregating data from JIRA. There are some hoops you
need to jump through to get what you want, but the results are exciting.
My incentive to do this has been trying to get a grip on the status of
our
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 4 Jun 07, at 6:26 PM 4 Jun 07, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Hi
A user stumbled upon these files in the repo:
http://people.apache.org/repo/m2-ibiblio-rsync-repository/org/apache/maven/plugins/maven-release-plugin/2.0-beta-6/2.0-beta-6.rip/
After fiddling with the stage-
I'd like to take a stab at creating a more user-oriented version of
http://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-m2-development.html.
The current page is not something that users are like to stumble upon
considering where it's at and its current contents. The new page will be
aimed at users
As stated in maven-dev, I think both 2.3.1 and 2.4 are pretty stable now.
The plugins and surefire booter should be up to date for 2.4,
and everything should be up to date for 2.3.1, in the snapshot repo.
I also changed the parent pom in 2.4 as it used ${project.version}, which
doesn't
work we
Hi,
I just found and fixed the bug after doing some testing of all possible config
values
for 2.3.1-snap and 2.4-snap.
fix is in svn, i redeployed surefirebooter for 2.4 and 2.3.1, so everything
should
be peachy now.
Turns out the '!' character was missing somewhere ;)
-- Kenney
Jason van
but you depend on B, so you want B, not C ;)
On 6/6/07, Patrick Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Right -- but B has no dependency on D, whereas C does. And C was builds
with 1.0.
On 6/6/07, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> B builds with 2.0, if you use B you should use it with
Right -- but B has no dependency on D, whereas C does. And C was builds
with 1.0.
On 6/6/07, Carlos Sanchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
B builds with 2.0, if you use B you should use it with whatever it was
built. I think it's clear that B should use 2.0, or you are not using
the "right" B
On
B builds with 2.0, if you use B you should use it with whatever it was
built. I think it's clear that B should use 2.0, or you are not using
the "right" B
On 6/6/07, Patrick Schneider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess I am on the fence as to whether 2.0 is the correct version of D for
A to get.
On 6/5/07, Jason van Zyl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 5 Jun 07, at 10:31 PM 5 Jun 07, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
>
> people use what they need, if they want just the IoC container they
> don't add all the required dependencies of the whole spring
> Our APIs are there and we have to keep backwards c
On 6/6/07, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 5, 2007, at 10:27 PM, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
> On 6/5/07, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't think we should be promoting the current APIs for public
>> consumption. They're a friggin mess. But, we could create some nice
>> fa
I guess I am on the fence as to whether 2.0 is the correct version of D for
A to get.
While B declares version 2.0 in its depMan section, we can't really be sure
of the intention of the developer if there is not a direct dependency on D
also listed in B. Maybe B is a parent project to X, Y, & Z
I'm still not 100% sure that's the case.
I am working from the point of view of Archiva on this.
And in that case, the versioning of the various maven-* artifacts are
important.
I seem to recall that the versions in $MAVEN_HOME/bin/lib always
override what is in the plugins.
But this new shad
I'm on top of it, thanks for the pointer.
I think someone deployed the booter and not the plugin or vice versa.
just redeployed 2.3.1-snappy
-- Kenney
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Just making sure Kenney and Brett see this as I'm currently trying to
find a problem with surefire and 2.0.7 which is a sh
and the other important thing you raised up is that for the reports to
be right the plugins need to be using 2.0.6 libraries too, or we'll
get different reports than the actual behavior
On 6/6/07, Joakim Erdfelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry for the 1950's Horror Movie Catchphrase. I'm just o
Hi,
I'm currently writing a JPOX plugin to connect to LDAP databases. In other
words, you can stick to JDO and support either RDBMS or LDAP databases. Of
course, you will be required to set ldap specific metadata in metadata files.
If you are interested, can you please point me to your object mod
Using LGPL is going to be tricky, but if you contribute the code of
your part under Apache we could try to reuse it with other library
like Spring-LDAP http://www.springframework.org/ldap
On 6/6/07, David Goemans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
First my LDAP-Lib does more than a normal LDAP-Connectio
Fabrice commits are getting moderated, can I subscribe hime directly
or he has to do it himself ?
--
I could give you my word as a Spaniard.
No good. I've known too many Spaniards.
-- The Princess Bride
Sorry for the 1950's Horror Movie Catchphrase. I'm just odd like that. ;-)
The following has been filed as http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3038
and I encourage discussion on this.
I was recently working out some discrepancies between what maven client,
mpir and archiva show as dependency tr
On Wed, June 6, 2007 5:25 pm, Mark Donszelmann wrote:
> well, as far as I can conclude, an aggregated build will calculate
> the order in which to generate (and install) the artifacts, so that
> any module dependent on them is run later than the one generating
> them.
That won't matter. If you do
On 07/06/2007, at 12:55 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
I stand by my case that all of us should be working on this list to
put us in a position to talk in a meaningful way about any
implementation of anything being replace.
In that case...
I would like to champion the re-initiation of the devel
Hi
well, as far as I can conclude, an aggregated build will calculate
the order in which to generate (and install) the artifacts, so that
any module dependent on them is run later than the one generating
them.
I am still confused though about your command:
mvn install release:prepare
will just
On Wed, June 6, 2007 4:50 pm, Mark Donszelmann wrote:
>> The workaround for us to release aggregated projects is like this:
>>
>> mvn install release:prepare
>>
> but this would do the install w/o the poms being changed from 3.3-
> SNAPSHOT to 3.3,
> so this would not help.
And yet it does help.
Just making sure Kenney and Brett see this as I'm currently trying to
find a problem with surefire and 2.0.7 which is a show stopper.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Ole-Martin Mørk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: June 6, 2007 5:26:03 AM EDT (CA)
To: "Maven Users List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:
Before you try and release this I'll work with you to fix the staging
plugin. I can at least add the WagonManager wiggling that will pull
in settings.xml information.
On 4 Jun 07, at 6:04 PM 4 Jun 07, Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Hi,
I'd like to release maven-idea-plugin 2.1. There are 12 issues
On 6 Jun 07, at 12:55 AM 6 Jun 07, Brett Porter wrote:
On 06/06/2007, at 2:06 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Is this different/related to the design paper you were working on?
As I've said before, I'm interested in collaborating on this, and
would like to see it posted somewhere.
No, he sta
On 5 Jun 07, at 9:58 PM 5 Jun 07, Brett Porter wrote:
(moved to dev@)
Jason,
Is there any way we can get this text into the issue submission form
itself? I think people need the just in time reminder.
Yup, already pointed out in my previous message that's what I would
try to do. Once I f
Hi
On Jun 6, 2007, at 4:41 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
On Tue, June 5, 2007 9:06 pm, Brett Porter wrote:
Right. The reason for not choosing to install by default is that you
end up with a "release" in your local repository which is not the
final one.
We've run into this problem as well - the
+1 for this feature
Thanks Brett to point this out!
Cheers,
Vincent
2007/6/5, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
(moved to dev@)
Jason,
Is there any way we can get this text into the issue submission form
itself? I think people need the just in time reminder.
- Brett
On 06/06/07, Jason va
Downloading:
http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/jdbc/jdbc/jdbc/12/jdbc-12.pom
Downloading:
http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/servlet/servlet/2.4/servlet-2.4.pom
Downloading:
http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/geae/util/util/3.15/util-3.15.pom
Downloading:
http://m
Jesse McConnell schrieb:
we are willing to contribute the ldap-module under apache license. But
this module uses also our LDAP-lib, which we only want to contribute
under GPL.
To function of my module: it is an implementation of the plexus-redback
user manager (But only a simple one, which don't o
On Jun 5, 2007, at 10:27 PM, Carlos Sanchez wrote:
On 6/5/07, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think we should be promoting the current APIs for public
consumption. They're a friggin mess. But, we could create some nice
facade classes in each of the main (artifact, project, embedd
On 6 Jun 07, at 1:19 AM 6 Jun 07, Brett Porter wrote:
(Getting annoyed by everyone replying to each other across 3
threads, so picking this one to move forward from)
On 06/06/2007, at 5:29 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
Here is my reasoning as the Embedder as the only form we should be
exposing
On Tue, June 5, 2007 9:06 pm, Brett Porter wrote:
> Right. The reason for not choosing to install by default is that you
> end up with a "release" in your local repository which is not the
> final one.
We've run into this problem as well - the version being tested, as far as
I am aware, is the SN
Hi all,
I'm getting the following error when I try to execute the command 'mvn
release:prepare'
-Error
--other downloads
Downloading:
http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/org/apache/maven/scm/maven-scm-provider-perforce/1.0/maven-scm-provider-perforce-1.0.jar
61K downloaded
[I
Hi Brett,
On 06/06/07, Brett Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My recollection would be that some artifacts are filtered out but
their transitive dependencies still needed to be taken into
consideration for version calculations, so this could be the reason
for this.
If an artifact is filtered
I've reverted it, I can't see that this was intentional.
On 05/06/2007, at 1:27 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
It looks more like you've removed stuff :)
On 05/06/2007, at 1:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: jvanzyl
Date: Mon Jun 4 20:18:37 2007
New Revision: 544357
URL: http://svn.apache.o
+1
Stéphane
On 6/6/07, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree. If we try to refactor everything now, it just means longer term before
2.1 can come out. Committing to a public façade for future compatibility and
abstraction from internals is the way to go.
-
63 matches
Mail list logo
