Re: maven-gwt-plugin 1.2 documentation

2010-01-12 Thread Henri Gomez
Oups, right,it should be on mojo-dev. Sorry 2010/1/11 Wayne Fay wayne...@gmail.com: It's not the wrong list, I reported some miss in the gwt plugin to Nicolas. Hopefully, he'll fix them quickly. I think Jason's point is that this discussion belongs on the mojo-dev or mojo-users list, not

Re: [VOTE] Release Maven SCM 1.3 (Take 2)

2010-01-12 Thread Mark Struberg
+1 LieGrue, strub --- On Mon, 1/11/10, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org wrote: From: Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Release Maven SCM 1.3 (Take 2) To: Maven Developers List dev@maven.apache.org Date: Monday, January 11, 2010, 5:42 PM Hi, In preparation of the Release Plugin

Some Maven Philosophy

2010-01-12 Thread Jason van Zyl
I generally don't post my blog entries here, but if anyone has ever wondered where Maven comes from at a philosophical level this is it: http://www.sonatype.com/people/2010/01/sonatype-and-the-foundations-of-the-maven-and-nexus-communities/ Thanks, Jason

repository.apache.org, gpg signatures and site:attach-descriptor

2010-01-12 Thread Stephen Connolly
For some reason the site descriptor does not get a signature generated by the gpg plugin. As r.a.o now requires all artifacts to be signed, it would appear to be impossible to close a staged repository. Or do other people have information to the contrary? -Stephen

Re: repository.apache.org, gpg signatures and site:attach-descriptor

2010-01-12 Thread Stephen Connolly
I've raised http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/MGPG-19 to track the root cause. A temporary work around would be to disable GPG validation on r.a.o -Stephen P.S. I'm blocked from releasing Surefire 2.5 due to this issue 2010/1/12 Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com: For some reason

Re: repository.apache.org, gpg signatures and site:attach-descriptor

2010-01-12 Thread Daniel Kulp
Why does the site descriptor need to be released as part of the plugin? Why not release surefire without it? It's definitely a bug, but I'm failing to see why it's a blocker for now. Dan On Tue January 12 2010 11:56:28 am Stephen Connolly wrote: I've raised

Re: repository.apache.org, gpg signatures and site:attach-descriptor

2010-01-12 Thread Jason van Zyl
The site stuff needs to be completely decoupled from releases. It such a horrible coupling and causes nothing but problems. Release and the documentation that goes along with it are completely separate. On 2010-01-12, at 12:08 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: Why does the site descriptor need to be

Yves Van Steen is out of the office.

2010-01-12 Thread yves . vansteen
I will be out of the office starting 12/01/2010 and will not return until 14/01/2010. I will respond to your message when I return.

Re: repository.apache.org, gpg signatures and site:attach-descriptor

2010-01-12 Thread Stephen Connolly
Fair enough, but we cannot make releases as things currently stand 2010/1/12 Jason van Zyl ja...@sonatype.com: The site stuff needs to be completely decoupled from releases. It such a horrible coupling and causes nothing but problems. Release and the documentation that goes along with it are

Re: repository.apache.org, gpg signatures and site:attach-descriptor

2010-01-12 Thread Stephen Connolly
The root cause seems to be that m-gpg-p does not consider that project.artifact may have multiple entries (specifically the site metadata) We can argue that the site needs to be decoupled from releasing, but as the site descriptor is one of the artifacts of a project (as opposed to the site) then

Re: repository.apache.org, gpg signatures and site:attach-descriptor

2010-01-12 Thread Jason van Zyl
You can use 3.x, I removed the site stuff from the lifecycle :-) On 2010-01-12, at 12:42 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote: Fair enough, but we cannot make releases as things currently stand 2010/1/12 Jason van Zyl ja...@sonatype.com: The site stuff needs to be completely decoupled from releases.

Re: repository.apache.org, gpg signatures and site:attach-descriptor

2010-01-12 Thread Daniel Kulp
Why is the site descriptor being generated for surefire? The shade release two weeks ago didn't generate a site file: http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/plugins/maven-shade-plugin/1.3/ and neither did the patch plugin:

Re: repository.apache.org, gpg signatures and site:attach-descriptor

2010-01-12 Thread Stephen Connolly
Then project site generation will be borked (even more than usual) I've no issues using 3.0-SNAPSHOT 2010/1/12 Jason van Zyl ja...@sonatype.com: You can use 3.x, I removed the site stuff from the lifecycle :-) On 2010-01-12, at 12:42 PM, Stephen Connolly wrote: Fair enough, but we cannot

Re: repository.apache.org, gpg signatures and site:attach-descriptor

2010-01-12 Thread Jason van Zyl
Look at the POM lifecycle. The site stuff is wedged in there. I removed this in 3.x. http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/maven-2/tags/maven-2.2.0/maven-core/src/main/resources/META-INF/plexus/components.xml On 2010-01-12, at 12:59 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote: Why is the site descriptor being

Re: repository.apache.org, gpg signatures and site:attach-descriptor

2010-01-12 Thread Dennis Lundberg
Jason van Zyl wrote: The site stuff needs to be completely decoupled from releases. It such a horrible coupling and causes nothing but problems. Release and the documentation that goes along with it are completely separate. That might be so, but the site descriptor is needed for (site)

Re: [VOTE] Release Maven Clean Plugin 2.4

2010-01-12 Thread Olivier Lamy
+1 2010/1/10 Benjamin Bentmann benjamin.bentm...@udo.edu: Hi, We solved 2 issues: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11128version=14882 There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=11128status=1

Re: repository.apache.org, gpg signatures and site:attach-descriptor

2010-01-12 Thread Brett Porter
On 13/01/2010, at 4:59 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote: Why is the site descriptor being generated for surefire? Because it has an inherited site descriptor to share across the subprojects: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/maven/surefire/tags/surefire-2.5/src/site/site.xml?view=log For Stephen to work

Re: site descriptor and the lifecycle (was: repository.apache.org, gpg signatures and site:attach-descriptor)

2010-01-12 Thread Brett Porter
On 13/01/2010, at 7:53 AM, Dennis Lundberg wrote: Jason van Zyl wrote: The site stuff needs to be completely decoupled from releases. It such a horrible coupling and causes nothing but problems. Release and the documentation that goes along with it are completely separate. That might be

Re: repository.apache.org, gpg signatures and site:attach-descriptor

2010-01-12 Thread Wendy Smoak
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote: For some reason the site descriptor does not get a signature generated by the gpg plugin. As r.a.o now requires all artifacts to be signed, it would appear to be impossible to close a staged repository.

Re: site descriptor and the lifecycle (was: repository.apache.org, gpg signatures and site:attach-descriptor)

2010-01-12 Thread Jason van Zyl
On 2010-01-12, at 5:52 PM, Brett Porter wrote: On 13/01/2010, at 7:53 AM, Dennis Lundberg wrote: Jason van Zyl wrote: The site stuff needs to be completely decoupled from releases. It such a horrible coupling and causes nothing but problems. Release and the documentation that goes

Re: repository.apache.org, gpg signatures and site:attach-descriptor

2010-01-12 Thread Brian Fox
We should definitely fix this, both in the GPG and in Nexus. Currently it expects all files to be signed and this is the first one we've come across that wasn't signed. I'll disable the rule now until it's sorted out and close the repo for you. Stephen, what ended up being the fix for the rest of

Re: site descriptor and the lifecycle (was: repository.apache.org, gpg signatures and site:attach-descriptor)

2010-01-12 Thread Brett Porter
On 13/01/2010, at 1:23 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote: On 2010-01-12, at 5:52 PM, Brett Porter wrote: On 13/01/2010, at 7:53 AM, Dennis Lundberg wrote: Jason van Zyl wrote: The site stuff needs to be completely decoupled from releases. It such a horrible coupling and causes nothing but

Re: Nexus Indexer code donation

2010-01-12 Thread Brian Fox
The Maven PMC has voted to move forward with the Indexer code donation. We will need to move next into the ip clearance phase. We have also voted to add Brian Demers, Damian Bradicich and Tamas Cservanak as Maven committers to help support the new code. --Brian Fox Maven PMC Char On Thu, Jan 7,

Re: repository.apache.org, gpg signatures and site:attach-descriptor

2010-01-12 Thread Stephen Connolly
2010/1/13 Brian Fox bri...@infinity.nu: We should definitely fix this, both in the GPG and in Nexus. Currently it expects all files to be signed and this is the first one we've come across that wasn't signed. I'll disable the rule now until it's sorted out and close the repo for you.

[VOTE] Release Surefire 2.5 (take 3)

2010-01-12 Thread Stephen Connolly
Hi, We solved 16 issues: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10541version=14119styleName=Html There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA: http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=truepid=10541status=1 Staging repo: