Jochen, the release plugin is configured to activate this new profile
automatically during perform, so that should answer both of your
questions:: 1) it doesn't need an activation of it's own and 2) the name
is irrelevant so it doesn't matter what we name it because noone has to
activate it
Came across this one while investigating
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MVERSIONS-19
This is a strange one...
in versions-maven-plugin:
http://mojo.codehaus.org/versions-maven-plugin/xref/org/codehaus/mojo/versions/api/DefaultVersionsHelper.html#186
We ask the ArtifactMetadataSource to give
Hi,
We solved 11 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?version=14254styleName=HtmlprojectId=11095
There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=11095status=1
Staging repo:
Brian, why are you modifying the pom.xml file under the apache-5 tag?
That has already been released and shouldn't be tampered with...
bri...@apache.org wrote:
Author: brianf
Date: Tue Apr 21 01:55:16 2009
New Revision: 766940
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=766940view=rev
Log:
I still need on more vote on this before I can release it.
So far we have:
+1 (binding): John Casey, Benjamin Bentmann
Thanks!
Paul Gier wrote:
Hi,
We solved 10 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11147styleName=Htmlversion=13830
There are still a couple of
+1
On 21-Apr-09, at 1:20 PM, Paul Gier wrote:
I still need on more vote on this before I can release it.
So far we have:
+1 (binding): John Casey, Benjamin Bentmann
Thanks!
Paul Gier wrote:
Hi,
We solved 10 issues:
+1
Paul Gier wrote:
I still need on more vote on this before I can release it.
So far we have:
+1 (binding): John Casey, Benjamin Bentmann
Thanks!
Paul Gier wrote:
Hi,
We solved 10 issues:
http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11147styleName=Htmlversion=13830
There
Hi John,
Author: jdcasey
Date: Tue Apr 21 16:24:42 2009
New Revision: 767207
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=767207view=rev
Log:
update to require java 1.5.
Modified:
maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
Modified: maven/components/branches/maven-2.1.x/pom.xml
URL:
Bumping the Java requirement doesn't feel like a maintenance release IMHO.
Therefore, shouldn't we bump the Maven version to 2.2 as well and rename the
branch or create a new one?
+1 It's a too big change for a bug fix release
Arnaud
That was an error, I'll roll it back.
Dennis Lundberg wrote:
Brian, why are you modifying the pom.xml file under the apache-5 tag?
That has already been released and shouldn't be tampered with...
bri...@apache.org wrote:
Author: brianf
Date: Tue Apr 21 01:55:16 2009
New Revision: 766940
While I'd be ok with updating the base requirement, starting to make a
lot of changes to generify things should probably be kept to 2.2.x
(I've seen bugs introduced in other projects in the process due to
casting, interface breakage, etc). I agree with John's tweeted intent
to keep 2.1.1
We previously already voted that 2.1.x would require 1.5.
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
Bumping the Java requirement doesn't feel like a maintenance release IMHO.
Therefore, shouldn't we bump the Maven version to 2.2 as well and rename the
branch or create a new one?
+1 It's a too big change for
I know and I was agree but we didn't do it. We didn't warn our users when we
published 2.1.0 (or I didn't see it).
Arnaud
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Brian Fox bri...@infinity.nu wrote:
We previously already voted that 2.1.x would require 1.5.
Arnaud HERITIER wrote:
Bumping the
+1 for the branch if someone wants to work on it.
Arnaud
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Brett Porter br...@apache.org wrote:
While I'd be ok with updating the base requirement, starting to make a lot
of changes to generify things should probably be kept to 2.2.x (I've seen
bugs introduced
Reinhard Nägele wrote:
Why is such version transformation done at all? What's the reasoning behind it?
http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MNG-3057
Usually, you would expect that your pom remains unchanged.
I believe we should probably at least leave those POMs untouched that
don't originate
You might want to adjust the issue key on this, I'm guessing it's from
it0051, but those earlier IT numbers just indicated sequence of
authorship, not a related issue (MNG-51 is something completely
different).
Cheers,
Brett
On 22/04/2009, at 5:49 AM, sisb...@apache.org wrote:
Author:
On 22/04/2009, at 7:09 AM, sisb...@apache.org wrote:
Author: sisbell
Date: Tue Apr 21 21:09:06 2009
New Revision: 767294
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=767294view=rev
Log:
[MNG-0731] - The distribution mng layout element was not being
copied in the model.
Likewise, the leading 0
17 matches
Mail list logo
