Hi,
I would like to have a mutable user of the cvs-connection, since the changes
are done of different users. So I tried to do it like this:
scm
connectionscm:cvs:pserver:${CVS_USER}@CVS-URL/connection
/scm
The ${CVS_USER} is a property in settings.xml. This works fine for the first
Personnally, when I used cvs, I prefered to used ext protocol with ssh
because the pserver isn't independant of the user.
If you can't migrate to ext protocol (just need a ssh access on the cvs
server), you don't have an other solution that the one you use. You can
report a bug on the release
+1 (binding): Brett, John, Emmanuel, Brian
other +1: James
I'll proceed with the release
On 04/06/2008, at 5:08 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
Hi
The Wagon 1.0-beta-3 candidate has been staged.
This release includes 59 fixes. You can take a look at the release
notes here:
Hi Shane,
This looks like a pretty positive step. Is the code on your branch for
MNG-3536 an implementation of this? How far along is it?
I have some questions. Bear in mind it's late on Friday, so I may just
be a bit slow :)
- how many classes is the typical model assembly going to
Hi John,
I haven't looked at the code, but angling at it purely from the
proposal... it does make sense - the problem in the related issues is
forking lifecycles. In general, under the current structure, keeping
the pre-interpolated model and applying that after forking would make
A non-binding +1, I'm all for world-class artifact resolution!
Mark
2008/6/13 Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Oleg has been contributing patches to the artifact mechanism for well over 6
months and has gone through some steps to look at graph-based resolution,
and subsequently moved on
+1
Raphaël
2008/6/13 Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Oleg has been contributing patches to the artifact mechanism for well over 6
months and has gone through some steps to look at graph-based resolution,
and subsequently moved on to the boolean solver method of performing version
I went through the unscheduled bunch of issues looking for reported
2.1 regressions this morning, and in what probably makes a clear
statement about my sanity, cleaned up a number of the 180 issues and
scheduled some for 2.0.x / 2.1 depending on their type (for those that
couldn't be
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Why release now?
163 fixes, 32 months since 2.0. 'Nuff said.
[...]
best of our knowledge - doesn't have any regressions from 2.0.x. This is
really a necessary platform before making further, bigger changes.
I know
Brett Porter wrote:
I believe we should start to knock these off, and prepare for an alpha
release as is, and wanted to see what others thought.
To cover the inevitable questions:
- Why release now?
163 fixes, 32 months since 2.0. 'Nuff said.
I would even make a 2.1-beta-1. Betas are by
+1, have only heard good things about oleg :)
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 4:13 AM, Raphaël Piéroni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
Raphaël
2008/6/13 Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Oleg has been contributing patches to the artifact mechanism for well over 6
months and has gone through some
+1
2008/6/13 Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Oleg has been contributing patches to the artifact mechanism for well over 6
months and has gone through some steps to look at graph-based resolution,
and subsequently moved on to the boolean solver method of performing version
selection in
Mauro Talevi wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
I believe we should start to knock these off, and prepare for an alpha
release as is, and wanted to see what others thought.
To cover the inevitable questions:
- Why release now?
163 fixes, 32 months since 2.0. 'Nuff said.
I would even make a
It's definitely alpha. There are so many variances at this point it
can't go out as a beta.
On 13-Jun-08, at 7:11 AM, Paul Gier wrote:
Mauro Talevi wrote:
Brett Porter wrote:
I believe we should start to knock these off, and prepare for an
alpha release as is, and wanted to see what
I would _love_ to do an alpha release before we get into further
refactoring efforts. I use 2.1 as my default now, and while I don't
venture too far afield into EAR, EJB, or other project types, I believe
it's at least stable enough for an alpha-1. Obviously, there is an
endless wishlist we
+1
-john
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
Oleg has been contributing patches to the artifact mechanism for well
over 6 months and has gone through some steps to look at graph-based
resolution, and subsequently moved on to the boolean solver method of
performing version selection in artifact
If we don't include the new artifact code, the we need to fix several
issues related to reresolving artifacts multiple times.
On Jun 13, 2008, at 5:28 AM, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I went through the unscheduled bunch of issues looking for
reported 2.1 regressions this
+1
--jason
On Jun 13, 2008, at 9:30 PM, John Casey wrote:
+1
-john
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
Oleg has been contributing patches to the artifact mechanism for
well over 6 months and has gone through some steps to look at graph-
based resolution, and subsequently moved on to the boolean
Just had a thought, would be nice if the pom exposed someway to define
aliases for a set of goals/phases.
This would allow project specific names to be used to invoke a set of
standard maven phases or a set of plugins.
Like I might want o have a release alias, which actually invokes:
+1
Arnaud
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Jason Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
--jason
On Jun 13, 2008, at 9:30 PM, John Casey wrote:
+1
-john
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
Oleg has been contributing patches to the artifact mechanism for well
over 6 months and has gone
+1
- Fabrice
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:20 AM, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Oleg has been contributing patches to the artifact mechanism for well over
6 months and has gone through some steps to look at graph-based resolution,
and subsequently moved on to the
Looks like we're good to go here. Oleg already has a CLA on file, so I
will put his account request through.
On 13-Jun-08, at 10:02 AM, Fabrice Bellingard wrote:
+1
- Fabrice
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 2:20 AM, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
Oleg has been
+1 [non-binding]
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
Oleg has been contributing patches to the artifact mechanism for well
over 6 months and has gone through some steps to look at graph-based
resolution, and subsequently moved on to the boolean solver method of
performing version selection in artifact
To me, it seems to detract from the intent of having a well known set of
phases so once you know maven, you can pick up any maven build. It reeks
of scripting...
-Original Message-
From: Jason Dillon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jason
Dillon
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 11:11 AM
I made something similar to help setup on my project :
running mvn -Psetup execute all required goals to prepare the developer env,
in my case a fast build (skipTests=true, compiler fail=false) +
eclipse:eclipse
This is done using a custom setup profile, that set default goal, some
properties
Hi
I'm in the process of converting the Ant builds, at my day job, to use
Maven Ant tasks for dependency management. This is my first contact with
Maven Ant tasks so I gave the doc a thorough reading and made some
corrections and alterations. The doc is currently only one page [1] and
is
I need one more vote for this one...
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Hi,
We solved 2 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11761styleName=Htmlversion=14366
There are still 1 issue left in JIRA:
Sounds like a good idea to me.
-Original Message-
From: Dennis Lundberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 6:51 PM
To: Maven Developers List
Subject: [DISCUSS] The documentation for Maven Ant Tasks
Hi
I'm in the process of converting the Ant builds, at my day job, to
+1
Rahul
Jason van Zyl wrote:
Hi,
Oleg has been contributing patches to the artifact mechanism for well
over 6 months and has gone through some steps to look at graph-based
resolution, and subsequently moved on to the boolean solver method of
performing version selection in artifact
+1
Vincent
2008/6/8 Dennis Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
We solved 2 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11761styleName=Htmlversion=14366
There are still 1 issue left in JIRA:
On 14/06/2008, at 12:58 AM, Brian Fox wrote:
If we don't include the new artifact code, the we need to fix
several issues related to reresolving artifacts multiple times.
Thanks Brian. Are these already issues in JIRA? I didn't spot them in
my search.
Cheers,
Brett
On Jun 13,
31 matches
Mail list logo
