Hi Oliver,
Olivier Lamy wrote:
On 15 August 2013 08:53, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 August 2013 21:21, Dennis Lundberg denn...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 August 2013 18:58, Dennis Lundberg denn...@apache.org wrote:
On Tue,
What sebb does not appear to have understood or accepted, as Stephen has
endlessly pointed out, is that we vote on the source bundle, not a scm
revision, and that, strictly speaking a SCM is not even required (however
sensible it is to use one).
He wants a tree and a revision so that we can
On 15 August 2013 09:50, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@scalaris.com wrote:
Hi Oliver,
Olivier Lamy wrote:
On 15 August 2013 08:53, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 August 2013 21:21, Dennis Lundberg denn...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com
Le 15 août 2013 10:51, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@scalaris.com a
écrit :
Hi Oliver,
Olivier Lamy wrote:
On 15 August 2013 08:53, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 August 2013 21:21, Dennis Lundberg denn...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com
On 15 August 2013 10:08, Chris Graham chrisgw...@gmail.com wrote:
What sebb does not appear to have understood or accepted, as Stephen has
endlessly pointed out, is that we vote on the source bundle, not a scm
revision, and that, strictly speaking a SCM is not even required (however
sensible
Sent from my iPhone
On 15/08/2013, at 10:05 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 August 2013 10:08, Chris Graham chrisgw...@gmail.com wrote:
What sebb does not appear to have understood or accepted, as Stephen has
endlessly pointed out, is that we vote on the source bundle, not a scm
What Sebb is doing is perfectly reasonable.
He's trying to assert that everything in the source ball actually comes from
source control and that no errant files have made their way into the
distribution. Right now we cannot assert that the assembly plugin has not
wandered outside the checkout
Hi Robert,
At Thu, 02 May 2013 19:34:07 +0200,
Robert Scholte wrote:
Hi Claudio,
I've had a look at it, because it looks like a simple fix.
But first I had to write a unit-test to confirm the issue, but I
haven't succeeded (yet).
Any progress on this? I'd like to get this off my bug
GitHub user nill14 opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/maven-plugins/pull/12
Use Eclipse-SourceBundle to handle sources
Added part for correctly handling source bundles.
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull
On 15 August 2013 14:16, Jason van Zyl ja...@tesla.io wrote:
What Sebb is doing is perfectly reasonable.
Thank you!
He's trying to assert that everything in the source ball actually comes from
source control and that no errant files have made their way into the
distribution. Right now we
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Stephen Connolly
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 August 2013 14:14, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 August 2013 14:08, Jason van Zyl ja...@tesla.io wrote:
Here you go:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@scalaris.com
wrote:
Hi Oliver,
Olivier Lamy wrote:
On 15 August 2013 08:53, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 August 2013 21:21, Dennis Lundberg denn...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, sebb
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:27 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 August 2013 14:16, Jason van Zyl ja...@tesla.io wrote:
What Sebb is doing is perfectly reasonable.
I agree. Checking that the source bundle is correct is good release review
practice.
Thank you!
He's trying to assert
Dennis, effectively what is required is a statement like this: I believe
that I've released XYZ binaries from ABC sources (tarball + N patches, SCM,
whatever) with enough info to exactly identify what XYZ and ABC are
(checksums, URLs, revisions, etc) without guessing and duplicated
+1 (Yeah, the vote)
Kristian
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
There was a compatibility break with generated code for maven 2.2.1.
Fixed in 1.8.1
Kristian
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
Right so far?
No, you're not. Step three, in SVN, requires reviewing history to confirm
no changes were made to that URL *ever*. In Git, step 3 involves knowing
the hash, as spurious tags have already been known to circulate.
Even if all of the details were in the POM, the question still
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Fred Cooke fred.co...@gmail.com wrote:
Right so far?
No, you're not. Step three, in SVN, requires reviewing history to confirm
no changes were made to that URL *ever*. In Git, step 3 involves knowing
the hash, as spurious tags have already been known to
Actually, I missed exactly nothing!!!
Your process could be flawed. Human errors do happen.
The entire point of any review is to not trust process or people, and to
check everything. You're effectively advocating not doing that, and this
*IS* unhealthy.
I know that with your process on a
+1 from me
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Jason van Zyl ja...@tesla.io wrote:
Hi,
We solved 5 issues:
https://jira.codehaus.org/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=11391version=18924
Staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-093/
Subversion Revision:
Hi Fred,
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Fred Cooke fred.co...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I missed exactly nothing!!!
Your process could be flawed. Human errors do happen.
The process is not flawed, but people make mistakes.
The entire point of any review is to not trust process or
Firstly, I'm not heated up, so I can not cool down, without going into
hypothermia.
Secondly, I never said that *you* were doing that, just that it was being
done.
Thirdly, I'm super glad that you agree SCM and bundles should be compared.
Fourthly, let's get on with the discussion about what it
On 15 August 2013 18:50, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@scalaris.com wrote:
Hi Oliver,
Olivier Lamy wrote:
On 15 August 2013 08:53, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 August 2013 21:21, Dennis Lundberg denn...@apache.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:47 AM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 August 2013 20:57, Dennis Lundberg denn...@apache.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:27 PM, sebb seb...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 August 2013 14:16, Jason van Zyl ja...@tesla.io wrote:
What Sebb is doing is perfectly reasonable.
I agree. Checking that the source bundle is correct is
It's funny that you cite no time and use the equivalent of 299.5 6 digit
revision numbers to send us an email on your lack of time. You could have
done 299 releases to Sebb's quite reasonable standards with that much
keyboard activity. Point made? :-p
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Olivier Lamy
+1
On 16 August 2013 06:14, Kristian Rosenvold
kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com wrote:
+1 (Yeah, the vote)
Kristian
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
On 16 August 2013 08:54, Fred Cooke fred.co...@gmail.com wrote:
It's funny that you cite no time and use the equivalent of 299.5 6 digit
revision numbers to send us an email on your lack of time. You could have
done 299 releases to Sebb's quite reasonable standards with that much
keyboard
Chances of understanding me:
- Close friend: 50%
- Other friend: 25%
- Kiwi: 15%
- Ozzy: 10% (that's you)
- POHM: 8%
- Yank: 5%
- Spaniard: 1%
So don't feel too bad, you had a 90% chance of failure stacked against you
;-)
I'd dearly love to contribute, but I will not and
One more PMC vote would be great to get this over with... ;-)
Am Donnerstag, 15. August 2013 schrieb Olivier Lamy :
+1
On 12 August 2013 03:51, Andreas Gudian
andreas.gud...@gmail.comjavascript:;
wrote:
Hi,
We solved 13 issues:
29 matches
Mail list logo
