Re: [2/2] maven git commit: Merge branch 'MNG-5629'

Am 16.01.2017 um 08:27 schrieb Fred Cooke: > Rebase is the only clean way forward for small projects in which people > step on each others toes. > > Merge commits are difficult to comprehend for some developers, leading to > errors. Avoiding them is beneficial. > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:23

Re: reviewing Maven Artifact Resolver MNG-6007 branch

back to a discussion we had some time ago, and I'm not clear on the definitive conclusion. Here is the question: since NOTICE and LICENSE files are automatically added to the source distribution archive (through apache-source-release-assembly-descriptor), do we need to manually maintain a copy

Re: [2/2] maven git commit: Merge branch 'MNG-5629'

Rebase is the only clean way forward for small projects in which people step on each others toes. Merge commits are difficult to comprehend for some developers, leading to errors. Avoiding them is beneficial. On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 8:23 PM, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: > do we

Re: [2/2] maven git commit: Merge branch 'MNG-5629'

do we want to keep such merge commits? I would have expected that when merging, we rebase then have no such merge commit: that branch work is just a temporary situation that completely disappears once merged (and we must not forget to delete merged branch) what do others think? Regards,

Re: reviewing Maven Artifact Resolver MNG-6007 branch

Am 01/15/17 um 20:34 schrieb Hervé BOUTEMY: > Hi, > > I reworked history, starting from 1.0.3-SNAPSHOT, and applying only renaming > but absolutely no code change. > > Please review and confirm that this branch is ok to merge to master: then > I'll > launch the release process for Maven

Please review 3.5.0-candidate JIRA issues.

I just looked at the issues with a fix version of 3.5.0-candidate. If not already done, I'd like to second the following issues: MNG-5837 Syntax error in bin/mvn on Solaris SPARC MNG-5823

Re: MNG-5629 and MNG-6117 look good

Am 01/13/17 um 14:48 schrieb Stephen Connolly: > I think we are ready to push these two branches to master > MNG-5629 merged to master. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org For additional commands,

[IT MNG-5958 - Take 2]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

Commit to review is here: If no one objects until Thursday, 19th, 2017, I'll merge it to master. Regards, -- Christian

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

Am 01/16/17 um 00:06 schrieb Anton Tanasenko: > I've submitted the PR for MNG-5958 branch. > Changed the existing 5805 IT to work for 3.3.9 only ('phases' syntax), and > duplicated it to a one that works with 3.3.9+ ('lifecyclePhases' syntax). Thanks. I just committed this to the MNG-5958 branch.

Re: Lets talk about our changes openly. maven-surefire git commit: [SUREFIRE-1324] Surefire incorrectly suppresses exceptions when closing resources.

Am 01/15/17 um 23:08 schrieb Tibor Digana: > Christian, > > We talked about what has happen in Surefire with Herve, Stephen and Robert. > We want to revert to [1] where CI was ok and never commit directly to > master. > We will open a branch with every change one after another and Herve will >

Re: [IT MNG-5958]: Please review integration test for MNG-5958

I've submitted the PR for MNG-5958 branch. Changed the existing 5805 IT to work for 3.3.9 only ('phases' syntax), and duplicated it to a one that works with 3.3.9+ ('lifecyclePhases' syntax). 2017-01-11 22:59 GMT+02:00 Christian Schulte : > Am 01/11/17 um 15:05 schrieb Anton

[GitHub] maven-integration-testing pull request #18: [MNG-5958] restore binary compat...

GitHub user atanasenko opened a pull request: https://github.com/apache/maven-integration-testing/pull/18 [MNG-5958] restore binary compatibility of Lifecycle.setPhases Modify tests for MNG-5805 You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running: $ git pull

Re: Lets talk about our changes openly. maven-surefire git commit: [SUREFIRE-1324] Surefire incorrectly suppresses exceptions when closing resources.

Christian, We talked about what has happen in Surefire with Herve, Stephen and Robert. We want to revert to [1] where CI was ok and never commit directly to master. We will open a branch with every change one after another and Herve will participate in code review. Herve told me that he is open

Re: reviewing Maven Artifact Resolver MNG-6007 branch

Looks Good to me: https://builds.apache.org/view/Maven/job/maven-resolver-jenkinsfile/job/MNG-6007/1/ On 15 January 2017 at 19:34, Hervé BOUTEMY wrote: Hi, I reworked history, starting from 1.0.3-SNAPSHOT, and applying only renaming but absolutely no code change.

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Compiler Plugin version 3.6.1

+1 On 14 January 2017 at 17:17, Robert Scholte wrote: > +1 > > On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:34:48 +0100, Robert Scholte > wrote: > > Hi, >> >> We solved 5 issues: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?proje >>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Compiler Plugin version 3.6.1

+1 Regards, Hervé Le vendredi 13 janvier 2017, 12:34:48 CET Robert Scholte a écrit : > Hi, > > We solved 5 issues: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12317225 > rsion=12338627=Text > > There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA: >

reviewing Maven Artifact Resolver MNG-6007 branch

Hi, I reworked history, starting from 1.0.3-SNAPSHOT, and applying only renaming but absolutely no code change. Please review and confirm that this branch is ok to merge to master: then I'll launch the release process for Maven Artifact Resolver 1.0.3. Once this is done, we'll be able to: 1.