Hello,
I did not find an overview and now am trying to explain firstly myself
and afterwards maybe others how Maven works (to other developers):
- Maven is a declarative tool to build software, which relies mainly
on conventions.
- Declarations are done in a XML file called pom (project object
Hello there Mirko,
I'd suggest fine-tuning the lifecycle-phase-plugin description slightly:
- Maven is a tool to build software, which relies mainly on conventions.
- The build is configured in an XML file called pom (project object
model, or pom file).
- Maven consists of a core and
Maybe worth understanding why the current online documentation did not
helped you. And maybe update it with this.
Thanks.
Sent from my iPhone
On 07 Jul 2013, at 12:51, Lennart Jörelid lennart.jore...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello there Mirko,
I'd suggest fine-tuning the lifecycle-phase-plugin
yes, such doc is useful IMHO, since it took myself a lot of time to get it
clear in my mind (particularly lifecycle-phase-goal)
for the moment, I didn't find energy to write it down since I didn't know where
to put it to get us work on improvements (and even if anybody would find it
useful)
The vote has passed with the following result:
+1 (binding): Hervé, Robert, Stéphane, Olivier
+1 (non binding): Baptiste
-1 (non binding): sebb
I will continue the release process.
Cheers,
--
Olivier Lamy
Ecetera: http://ecetera.com.au
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
On Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:00:40 -0400
Jason van Zyl ja...@tesla.io wrote:
+1,
works fine for our projects.
thanks,
tony.
Here are the release bits for 3.1.0:
Release notes:
https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500version=18967
Staging repository:
2013/7/7 sebb seb...@gmail.com:
On 6 July 2013 19:53, John Casey jdca...@commonjava.org wrote:
Hmm, actually, from running a few builds of the source-release archive, I
can see that the unit tests appear to be creating the
${basedir}/maven-archive/ directory. I wonder if this has to do with
In this instance, these files are derived files, so does it matter?
If you re-run the build, the same files should be generated in the same way, so
you get a consistent build.
That is different issue to differences between different releases.
It is also a separate issue to whether the file
Well ... first of all, if documentation is considered important or
relevant, it should be easy to find.
The first principle of design is to make the function/use of an object
visible.
Currently, the main maven documentation for practically everyone (except,
perhaps, maven
developers who digs
+1 (non-binding)
Didn't try any of the new stuff explicitly though.
/Anders
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Jason van Zyl ja...@tesla.io wrote:
Here are the release bits for 3.1.0:
Release notes:
https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=10500version=18967
Staging
Hello,
first of all, thanks for your replies. I think it would help very much
if an introductory would be at the plugin development page[1] to get
the big picture. Or even be repeated at the the run[2] page.
Running Maven is trivial until you encounter problems or wish to
extend stuff. I deal a
On 7 July 2013 13:45, Chris Graham chrisgw...@gmail.com wrote:
In this instance, these files are derived files, so does it matter?
I already said that this particular file is probably not an issue.
The issue is that the release process is clearly not infallible.
The assembly plugin does not
I understand the issue but for me all that problems will never disappear if
we don't find a solution to automate the process.
Yes PMCs (and devs) are responsible to do various controls as you mentioned
but I suppose that we aren't different to others projects and our time
spent in OSS projects is
On Sunday, 7 July 2013, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
I understand the issue but for me all that problems will never disappear if
we don't find a solution to automate the process.
Yes PMCs (and devs) are responsible to do various controls as you mentioned
but I suppose that we aren't different to
On 7 July 2013 20:39, Arnaud Héritier aherit...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand the issue but for me all that problems will never disappear if
we don't find a solution to automate the process.
The point is that processes and people are not infallible
Yes PMCs (and devs) are responsible to do
On 7 July 2013 20:52, Stephen Connolly stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, 7 July 2013, Arnaud Héritier wrote:
I understand the issue but for me all that problems will never disappear if
we don't find a solution to automate the process.
Yes PMCs (and devs) are responsible to do
Le dimanche 7 juillet 2013 20:53:02 sebb a écrit :
On 7 July 2013 20:39, Arnaud Héritier aherit...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand the issue but for me all that problems will never disappear
if
we don't find a solution to automate the process.
The point is that processes and people are not
On 8 July 2013 04:01, Mirko Friedenhagen mfriedenha...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
first of all, thanks for your replies. I think it would help very much
if an introductory would be at the plugin development page[1] to get
the big picture. Or even be repeated at the the run[2] page.
Running
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:31 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 July 2013 13:45, Chris Graham chrisgw...@gmail.com wrote:
In this instance, these files are derived files, so does it matter?
I already said that this particular file is probably not an issue.
I think that you missed my
this means archetype will be 1.6 required
(http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-io/).
Is it the goal?
2013/7/8 aherit...@apache.org:
Author: aheritier
Date: Sun Jul 7 23:21:09 2013
New Revision: 1500550
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1500550
Log:
Update commons-io 2.2 - 2.4
Modified:
On 7 July 2013 23:36, hbout...@apache.org wrote:
Author: hboutemy
Date: Sun Jul 7 22:36:42 2013
New Revision: 1500547
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1500547
Log:
added releases history
Added:
maven/site/trunk/content/apt/docs/history.apt (with props)
Added:
Damned no. This test commit shouldn't have land it. I will revert it.
Sorry for the noise.
-
Arnaud
Le 8 juil. 2013 à 02:33, Olivier Lamy ol...@apache.org a écrit :
this means archetype will be 1.6 required
(http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-io/).
Is it the goal?
2013/7/8
22 matches
Mail list logo
